Barking Mad

Bush Words Reflect Public Opinion Strategy

By Peter Baker and Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, June 30, 2005; Page A01

When President Bush confidently predicts victory in Iraq and admits no mistakes, admirers see steely resolve and critics see exasperating stubbornness. But the president's full-speed-ahead message articulated in this week's prime-time address also reflects a purposeful strategy based on extensive study of public opinion about how to maintain support for a costly and problem-plagued military mission.

The White House recently brought onto its staff one of the nation's top academic experts on public opinion during wartime, whose studies are now helpingBush craft his message two years into a war with no easy end in sight. Behind the president's speech is a conviction among White House officials that the battle for public opinion on Iraq hinges on their success in convincing Americans that, whatever their views of going to war in the first place, the conflict there must and can be won.

"There's going to be an appetite by some to relitigate past decisions," said White House counselor Dan Bartlett. But the studies consulted by the White House show that in the long run public support for war is "mostly linked to whether you think you can prevail," he added, which is one reason it is important for Bush to explain "why he thinks it's working and why he thinks it'll win."

For Bush, Bartlett emphasized, the public rhetoric matches the private conviction that his strategy will succeed. But it also leaves Bush in the difficult position of balancing confidence and credibility. The more optimism Bush expresses, the more criticism he draws from Congress and commentators that he is not facing the reality of a tenacious insurgency that, according to U.S. military commanders, remains as potent today as six months ago.

Bush has never been one to dwell publicly on past miscalculations in Iraq, on such issues as weapons of mass destruction, the reception forecast for invading U.S. troops and the durability of the armed resistance after the fall of Saddam Hussein. As he continues to tout progress in the face of near-daily car bombings, critics say, his standing with the public will continue to slip.

"Unless they're more candid with the American people, there's no reason to think the drift in public opinion is going to turn around," said P.J. Crowley of the Center for American Progress, a retired Air Force colonel who was a national security aide in the Clinton White House.

Bush adversaries insisted yesterday that they remain no less committed to victory and denied engaging in defeatism. "I really do think it's winnable, but you've got to keep the American people following with you," Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) said in an interview. "That's why I urged them to give the speech. He told us the why. He didn't tell us the how. Business as usual won't get us there. I think he has to change some policy or alter some policy."

Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), who has also been highly critical of Bush's handling of the war effort, rushed out a statement after Tuesday night's speech asserting his own confidence in victory. "I have had differences with the administration over the planning and execution of our postwar policy in Iraq," he said. "However, we all are working toward finding a way to succeed in Iraq."

At stake is the ability to sustain a war that so far has claimed the lives of nearly 1,750 U.S. troops and that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has predicted could last years. The Bush team is acutely aware that public support remains critical for the long-term viability of such a venture, and in the face of sagging polls in recent weeks it has determined to refocus energy on shoring up popular opinion.

Unfortunately, saying you are winning and actually winning are two different things. Bush can spin his losing strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the spin doesn't change the facts. The facts are crushing his feeble arguments.

As the Crow...

I'm one of those "up with the sun, down with the sun" people, so I'll leave you late nighters to fight out what we posted today. I'm so tired that my teeth hurt. Founding a new wiki is harder work than anything W ever did. Go look at the contributions. These are the working hard folk who don't just cut brush.

Out of Touch

It's Not the Heat, It's the Uncertainty
# Washington's staffers and activists suspend summer vacation plans, anxiously awaiting a Rehnquist retirement that has yet to occur.

By Faye Fiore and Janet Hook, Times Staff Writers

WASHINGTON — The possible retirement of Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist has taken shape as a hulking storm front approaching this anxious city. It won't rain. It won't blow over. It's just parked there. Rumbling.

An entire industry of activist groups is waiting to lurch into action should the ailing jurist decide to create the first Supreme Court vacancy in 11 years — as many experts had expected him to do Monday, when the high court issued its last rulings for the current session.

They all had game plans for what to do if Rehnquist announced his departure. But he didn't, and now Washington is stuck in a heightened state of readiness.

Vacation plans are in limbo. Kids have been plopped into camps. Million-dollar ad campaigns are stuck in their starting blocks.

Sean Rushton, executive director of the Committee for Justice, a conservative group organizing support for President Bush's judicial nominees, wore a necktie to work Monday so he'd look nice for television interviews that never happened.

One Democratic staff member for the Senate Judiciary Committee moved up her wedding plans from August to April, knowing she'd be good and married should the chief justice decide to make any summer announcements.

The office of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), a member of the Judiciary Committee, has been in a holding pattern for weeks. His senior aide, Stephanie Cutter, bought travel insurance so she can scratch her Labor Day trip to Paris if she needs to; communications director Laura Capps is planning a simple August camping trip with no hotel or plane to cancel, just in case.

And Laurie Boeder, director of media relations for the liberal group People for the American Way, was at her battle station this week, having canceled an annual trip with friends to Lake Elsie in North Dakota.

"That means I will miss the Fourth of July pontoon boat parade," she said.

People for the American Way had staff at work all last weekend, making sure the research it had compiled on potential nominees was at the ready. The group was hardly disappointed when Rehnquist made no announcement: Liberals generally expect that his replacement will be no more to their liking.

The retirement of the 80-year-old chief justice, whenever it comes, is bound to prompt a clash of liberal and conservative titans. But how loud or how bloody, no one can say.

For Gary Bauer, a conservative activist who ran for president in 2000, the uncertainty has had one clear effect: "Increasing my personal purchase of Pepto-Bismol."

The waiting game also is making some here feel rather unseemly. Most people have felt genuine compassion for Rehnquist since he was diagnosed as having thyroid cancer in the fall, even while they have been plotting strategies to influence the choice of his replacement.

"It's always been a little uncomfortable for those of us who care about his potential vacancy to be hovering around like a bunch of vultures," Bauer said.

But politics usually trumps protocol in Washington, and some interest groups haven't bothered to wait for the official word.

Progress for America, a pro-Bush political organization, put up the first television ad of the court battle last week, spending $700,000 to warn that liberals would launch a smear campaign against whomever Bush nominates. The group has another ad ready to go to 8.7 million e-mail addresses, as well as banner ads for popular websites, spokesman Stuart Roy said.

"Everyone is ready for a great debate on the court, especially after some of the rulings this term," Bauer said, referring to two decisions that limited property rights and the posting of the Ten Commandments. "It may be now, in six months, or in a year."

To fully appreciate the restlessness, consider the Washingtonian rite of summer.

July Fourth is the kickoff, with tourists flocking here to see the glorious fireworks display on the National Mall — which locals desperately avoid, leaving town if at all possible. Then folks count the days until August, when Congress adjourns and the city crawls into a state of hibernation — sort of like Paris, but stickier. (Unlike the City of Light, the City of Marble was built on a swamp.) Anybody who is anybody heads for some oceanfront spot. Plans are usually made months in advance.

Not this time.

While the Kewl Kids are worrying about their Rehobeth deposits and their kids' summer camps, there is a whole swath of America that doesn't get vacations and can't send its kids to camp. I'm taking my first vacation since 1998 this summer. This article is so Beltway Insider that it makes me nauseous. I'm supposed to feel sorry for the lobbiests and reporters? Give me a fucking break.

Yes, the weather in DC sucks. Deal with it.

Flu Wiki-The Interview

This is the fruit of the interviews that one of the Reveres and I gave to The Canadian Press reporter earlier this week.

Bloggers surfing, sharing science in quest to understand pandemic threat
By HELEN BRANSWELL
2005-06-30 14:00:00

TORONTO (CP) - They religiously monitor Asian newspaper articles, devour World Health Organization reports, scan medical literature. They debate the principles that drive the evolution of influenza viruses and critique government preparations for a flu pandemic.

But they aren't virologists, microbiologists, epidemiologists or public health leaders. (Well, most of them aren't, anyway.) They are regular folk - housewives, writers, college instructors - who share an obsession over what they believe is the looming threat of a flu pandemic.

Meet the Internet's dedicated and growing community of flu bloggers.

Some blog to educate themselves. Some blog to inform others. Some blog in the hopes of spurring public officials to action.

"We're like a little tribe of hunter-gatherers and we're kind of scattered around looking for things to eat under rocks," explains Crawford Kilian, author of a blog entitled H5N1 and an instructor of communications at Capilano College in North Vancouver.

"And once in awhile we find something: 'Hey, get a load of this iguana.' And everyone takes a look. And then we go scattering off looking for more iguanas. And in the process, we kind of keep each other informed."

The community is tiny, but the number of hits the sites are getting is on the rise, perhaps signalling a burgeoning public awareness of the growing concern in the scientific community that the H5N1 strain could be poised to trigger the first pandemic of this century.

"The blogosphere is making these issues a little more permeable," Kilian says. "It's slowly spreading the news."

The blogger or bloggers who run a site called Effect Measure first seized upon avian influenza's potential to spark a pandemic - and the seemingly anemic response to that threat - as a metaphor for the state of the U.S. public health system.

"Here's a freight train coming down the tracks and nobody's doing anything about it," says one of the editors, who post from behind the alias "Revere."

"I wanted to sort of goad people. Get some action at the leadership level."

That blog bears the disclaimer that the editors are well-known public health scientists or practitioners who choose to obscure their identity for maximum freedom of expression. (The Revere quoted here is indeed a recognizable name.)

Melanie Mattson is the author of Just a Bump in the Beltway, a proudly left-of-centre political and public affairs blog with a strong interest in pandemic flu.

A self-employed writer from Falls Church, Va., Mattson is an avid amateur epidemiologist who has been following developments with H5N1 since 1997. That's when the bird virus set off scientific alarm bells by becoming the first known strain of avian flu to directly infect humans.

She scours the web for flu science, sharing finds with people she deems to be "rational actors" and eschewing those she feels are trying to use the subject to support fringe views.

"This is citizen journalism at its best. And also its worst," she says. Why worst? "Because there are the people out there who are saying it's a CIA conspiracy."

Mattson, the Reveres and the blogger behind The Next Hurrah this week launched a Flu Wiki, a resource guide that will evolve from entries written and edited by visitors to the site. The wiki (the term is based on wiki wiki, the Hawaiian word for quick or informal) has been averaging about 1,500 hits a day since it launched, with the average reader viewing about 15 pages of the text per visit.

In general, the flu blogs and discussion boards that they interact with contain a broad mix of up-to-the-minute news, science, opinion and advice. Effect Measure recently ran an item on how long different foodstuffs last, for those putting aside supplies on the assumption the food distribution network could be severely disrupted by a pandemic.

Other discussions relate to how or whether to try to put aside personal stockpiles of oseltamivir, a prescription antiviral drug that blunts the blow of human flu and is believed to be effective against H5N1 as well.

One frequent contributor, known in the flu cyberworld as CanadaSue, constructed a lengthy scenario - posted on the Flu Wiki - that details what life could be like in her hometown, Kingston, Ont., during a pandemic.

CanadaSue - Sue Smith, a homemaker and former nurse - thinks people need to start putting some thought into how they might deal with the hardships a pandemic could provoke.

"My position is that individuals need to be thinking about it themselves and thinking about what they're going to do in their individual circumstances. Yeah, that might be food in the basement. For some it might be Tamiflu," says Smith, who adds she's not a proponent of personal stockpiles of the drug.

"I'm trying to make the public, those who are interested - and frankly, not that many are yet - I'm just trying to get them interested in thinking: OK, how will this affect me? How will it affect my family? How will it affect my job?"

Mattson shares that view.

"I think that it's responsible for people to know that there is this threat lurking out there," she says.

"Trying to strike the balance in tone between saying 'My God, we're all going to die,' and saying 'This could be nothing, it could be something, probably you should know about it,' is the daily balancing act that I'm trying to walk."

Kilian too worries about balance. In his case, it's the balance between opinion and fact - and whether blog surfers know how to distinguish one from the other.

"Just because I'm out there, shovelling this information onto my blog does not mean that I know what the hell I'm doing or what I'm talking about," he admits.

"And yet because the information's there and the blog looks kind of tidy it acquires a sort of false aura of expert knowledge. And that in itself can be a real hazard. That can be a downside of the web and blogging in particular. And that is that just because you're out there and you're shooting your mouth off, people start treating you like a guru." CP Health, Media, Software, Politics

Some blogs which focus on pandemic influenza:

-Crawford Kilian's H5N1, http://crofsblogs.typepad.com/h5n1/

-The Flu Wiki, http://www.fluwikie.com/index.php?nMain.HomePage

-Effect Measure, http://effectmeasure.blogspot.com/

-Melanie Mattson's Just a Bump in the Beltway, http://www.node707.com/

-Epidemica, http://www.epidemi.ca/

-Avian Flu, http://avianflu.typepad.com/

Unarmed

This article in the new edition of The Nation is just terrific if you want to understand how we got into such horrible state of unpreparedness for a possible avian flu epidemic. The nut grafs are below, but read the whole thing.

Avian Flu: A State of Unreadiness

Mike Davis

Certainly the leading influenza researchers, from the first H5N1 outbreak in 1997, have been doing their utmost to alert medical colleagues worldwide to the urgent threat of avian flu, as well as outlining the immediate steps the Bush Administration and other governments needed to take. As befitted his position as "pope" of influenza researchers, Robert Webster of Saint Jude Hospital in Memphis tirelessly preached the same sermon: "If a pandemic happened today, hospital facilities would be overwhelmed and understaffed because many medical personnel would be afflicted with the disease. Vaccine production would be slow because many drug-company employees would also be victims. Critical community services would be immobilized. Reserves of existing vaccines, M2 inhibitors and NA inhibitors would be quickly depleted, leaving most people vulnerable to infection."

Webster stressed the particular urgency of increasing the production and stockpiling of the NA inhibitor Tamiflu. Because this strategic antiviral was "in woefully short supply"--it is made by Roche at a single factory in Switzerland--Webster and his colleagues underlined the need for resolute government action: "The cost of making the drugs, as opposed to the price the pharmaceutical companies charge consumers, would not be exorbitant. Such expenditure by governments would be a very worthwhile investment in the defense against this debilitating and often deadly virus." Failure to act would mean intense competition over the small inventory of life-saving Tamiflu. "Who should get these drugs?" Webster asked. "Healthcare workers and those in essential services, obviously, but who would identify those? There would not be nearly enough for those who needed them in the developed world, let alone the rest of the world's population."

Webster wasn't calling for miracles, just prudent action to insure an adequate antiviral stockpile. But for almost three years he and other influenza experts were ignored, as were those who argued more generally that "the best way to manage bioterrorism is to improve the management of existing public-health threats." The Bush Administration instead fast-tracked vaccination programs for smallpox and anthrax, based on fanciful scenarios that might have embarrassed Tom Clancy. In reality, the biodefense boom was designed to build support for the invasion of Iraq by sowing the fear that
Saddam Hussein might use germ warfare against the United States. In any event, Washington spent $1 billion expanding a smallpox vaccine stockpile that some experts claim was already quite sufficient. Hundreds of thousands of GIs were forced to undergo the vaccinations, but front-line health workers--the second tier of the smallpox campaign--largely boycotted the Administration's attempts to cajole "voluntary" participation.

In spite of this fiasco and millions of doses of unused vaccine, the Administration pressed ahead with the development of second-generation smallpox and anthrax vaccines, as well as vaccines for such exotic plagues as ebola fever; it continued to reject the "all hazards" strategy recommended by most public-health experts in favor of a so-called "siloed approach" that focused on a short list of possible bioweapons. In testimony before the House of Representatives, Tommy Thompson explained that while "private investment should drive the development of most medical products," only the government was in a position to develop those products that "everyone hopes...will never be needed" as a protection against "rare yet deadly threats." The government, in other words, was willing to spend lots of money on biological threats that were unlikely or farfetched but not on antivirals or new antibiotics for the diseases that were actually most menacing, like avian flu.

Link courtesy of Declan Butler at Connotea

No News IS News

While the rest of the country goes quietly about moving into their holiday weekend, we inside the beltway obsess, and the WashPo writes about it:

Only Vacancy Is in Supreme Court News

By Dana Milbank

Thursday, June 30, 2005; Page A04

This was to have been the busiest week of Sean Rushton's life. As director of the Committee for Justice, he was to have kicked off the right's fight for a conservative successor to Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist.

But Rushton is standing down. He told his wife to go ahead with a deposit on the beach house in the Outer Banks. He sent his assistant off on a professional development conference. He's catching up on his e-mail. "Lot of solitaire, lot of tick-tack-toe," Rushton said yesterday from his quiet Pennsylvania Avenue office after circulating a news release calling a Supreme Court retirement "less likely" and suggesting that the right concentrate on lower courts.

What scenes of Washington politics would you like Dana Milbank to write about? E-mail your suggestions of people, places or events -- along with your name and hometown to [email protected].

How could this be? Yesterday was the day Rehnquist was absolutely, positively to have announced his retirement -- a fact made all the more certain by his not doing so on Monday or Tuesday. Journalists knew it. Administration sources knew it. The White House and scores of interest groups were preparing for it. The only one who didn't know Rehnquist was retiring, apparently, was Rehnquist himself.

The cagey chief justice, who has thyroid cancer, may yet announce his retirement at any moment. But with each passing hour, the doubts grow. Since Monday, the capital's conventional wisdom has executed a perfect 180, and the smart money now says Rehnquist (and Sandra Day O'Connor and the others) won't resign. But since nobody seems to know for certain except for Rehnquist, the wait continues. Instead of beginning an apocalyptic confirmation battle, Washington this week resembles a Samuel Beckett play.

"It's hell," said NBC News's Pete Williams, sitting in his cubicle in the Supreme Court press room -- waiting. Outside, at the bottom of the court steps, an NBC camera crew languishes as it has all week -- waiting, eating Doritos, reading the paper, talking to tourists. "You can't do a story saying nothing happened," Williams pointed out.

Funny, isn't that exactly what Milbank is doing?

Ritalin Needed

Mood of Anxiety Engulfs Afghans as Violence Rises

By CARLOTTA GALL
Published: June 30, 2005

KABUL, Afghanistan, June 29 - The loss of a military helicopter with 17 Americans aboard in eastern Afghanistan on Tuesday comes at a time of growing insecurity here. For the first time since the United States overthrew the Taliban government three and a half years ago, Afghans say they are feeling uneasy about the future.

Violence has increased sharply in recent months, with a resurgent Taliban movement mounting daily attacks in southern Afghanistan, gangs kidnapping foreigners here in the capital and radical Islamists orchestrating violent demonstrations against the government and foreign-financed organizations.

The steady stream of violence has dealt a new blow to this still traumatized nation of 25 million. In dozens of interviews conducted in recent weeks around the country, Afghans voiced concern that things were not improving, and that the Taliban and other dangerous players were gaining strength.

An American Chinook helicopter that crashed on Tuesday was brought down by hostile fire as it was landing during combat in a mountainous border area, American military officials said Wednesday.

Afghans interviewed about the continuing violence also expressed increased dissatisfaction with their own government and the way the United States military was conducting its operations, and said they were suspicious of the Americans' long-term intentions.

"Three years on, the people are still hoping that things are going to work out, but they have become suspicious about why the Americans came, and why the Americans are treating the local people badly," said Jandad Spinghar, leader of the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission in Nangarhar Province in the east, just across the Khyber Pass from Pakistan.

Poverty, joblessness, frustrated expectations and the culture of 25 years of war make for a volatile mix in which American military raids, shootings and imprisonments can inflame public opinion, many here say.

"Generally people are not against the Americans," Mr. Spinghar said. "But in areas where there are no human rights, where they do not have good relations and where there is bad treatment of villagers or prisoners, this will hand a free area to the Taliban. It's very important that the Americans understand how the Afghan people feel."

Reflecting the shifting popular mood, President Hamid Karzai has publicly criticized the behavior of American troops and called for closer cooperation when Afghan homes are raided.

The Taliban's spring offensive has sounded an alarm for the United States military and the Karzai government, both of which had said that the Taliban were largely defeated and that the nation was consolidating behind its first elected national leader.

"We were wrong," a senior Afghan government official acknowledged, saying of the Taliban, "It seems they were spending the time preparing." He insisted on anonymity because of the delicacy of the subject within the government.

Is it my imagination, or is Bushco having trouble focusing on things? This administration seems to have attention deficit disorder.

Share the Wealth

Spanish parliament passes gay marriage bill
Last Updated Thu, 30 Jun 2005 06:20:50 EDT
CBC News

Days after Canada's parliament passed same-sex marriage legislation, Spanish lawmakers have voted to allow gays and lesbians to legally marry.

The vote in the 350-seat Congress of Deputies was 187 in favour, 147 against and four abstentions.

The law would make Spain only the fourth country in the world to officially recognize same-sex marriage. The Netherlands and Belgium approved same-sex marriages in 2000 and 2003.

In Canada, the Liberals' controversial same-sex marriage legislation passed final reading in the House of Commons Monday. It is expected to become law before the end of July.

"We were not the first, but I am sure we will not be the last," Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero told the chamber. "After us will come many other countries, driven, ladies and gentlemen, by two unstoppable forces: freedom and equality."

"Freedom and equality," a worthy standard, indeed, but it scares the crap out of straight people. Except for Spanish, Belgian and Canadian straights.

Disclaimer: the author is boringly straight.

Unpopular

Bush's Iraq speech draws career-low TV audience
Wed Jun 29, 2005 07:50 PM ET

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - President Bush's latest address to the nation, urging Americans to stand firm in Iraq, drew the smallest TV audience of his tenure, Nielsen Media Research reported on Wednesday.

Live coverage of Bush's half-hour speech on Tuesday night from the Ft. Bragg military base in North Carolina averaged 23 million viewers combined on four major U.S. broadcast networks and three leading cable news channels, Nielsen said.

Designed largely to bolster sagging public support for the persistently bloody conflict in Iraq, the speech fell 8.6 million viewers shy of Bush's previous low as president, his Aug. 9, 2001 address on stem cell research, which was carried on six networks.

Even Bush's last prime-time address, his April 28 speech on Social Security overhaul, drew more viewers: 32.7 million.

Bush garnered the biggest U.S. TV audience of his presidency -- 82 million viewers on nine networks -- when he addressed a joint session of Congress nine days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on America.

By comparison, his May 1, 2003, speech from the deck of an aircraft carrier declaring an end to major combat operations in Iraq averaged 48.4 million viewers.

Television viewing levels in general drop off during the summer months, and the second most-watched telecast on Tuesday night was a repeat edition of a "48 Hours Mystery" on CBS, which averaged just 7.4 million viewers.

CBS also accounted for the biggest share of Bush's audience on Tuesday night, with more than 5.5 million tuning in to the Viacom Inc.-owned network to watch the president.

But No. 2 NBC, which ran a full 30 minutes of post-speech analysis, led the networks in that half hour with nearly 5.3 million viewers. Its rivals switched back to entertainment programming for most of that half hour and drew smaller audiences.

Three of the major broadcast networks -- CBS, NBC and Fox -- did not decide until the day of the speech to carry it. ABC announced on Monday that it would cover the address.

I'm guessing that you were either a Bush partisan or a policy geek to have watched it. I don't know anyone who did. Except me.

Sound of Silence

Troops' Silence at Fort Bragg Starts a Debate All Its Own

By DAVID E. SANGER
Published: June 30, 2005
New York Times

WASHINGTON, June 29 - So what happened to the applause?

When President Bush visits military bases, he invariably receives a foot-stomping, loud ovation at every applause line. At bases like Fort Bragg - the backdrop for his Tuesday night speech on Iraq - the clapping is often interspersed with calls of "Hoo-ah," the military's all-purpose, spirited response to, well, almost anything.

So the silence during his speech was more than a little noticeable, both on television and in the hall. On Wednesday, as Mr. Bush's repeated use of the imagery of the Sept. 11 attacks drew bitter criticism from Congressional Democrats, there was a parallel debate under way about whether the troops sat on their hands because they were not impressed, or because they thought that was their orders.

Capt. Tom Earnhardt, a public affairs officer at Fort Bragg who participated in the planning for the president's trip, said that from the first meetings with White House officials there was agreement that a hall full of wildly cheering troops would not create the right atmosphere for a speech devoted to policy and strategy.

"The guy from White House advance, during the initial meetings, said, 'Be careful not to let this become a pep rally,' " Captain Earnhardt recalled in a telephone interview. Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary, confirmed that account.

As the message drifted down to commanders, it appears that it may have gained an interpretation beyond what the administration's image-makers had in mind. "This is a very disciplined environment," said Captain Earnhardt, "and some guys may have taken it a bit far," leaving the troops hesitant to applaud.

Honestly, this is too much spin even for me. I've got relatives in that part of the world (trust me, Fort Bragg is a world unto itself) and if a speaker says something they agree with, they aren't going to sit on their hands. And you would think that someone that the media tells us is oh so popular with the troops would have them jumping out of their seats from the word go.

I almost feel sorry for the poor Captain. He's clearly trying to put a good face on a situation that is, to be blunt, a PR disaster. The White House is very quickly losing control over a world that can't be spun away just because the media says so. I'm not even sure the drones at Fox News are going to believe this. Let's hope the Captain doesn't find himself tranfered to lovely Kabul.

In some ways, I'm glad about this public meltdown. In a perfect world, Bush should already have none after his last "press conference" and debate performances, but since this isn't a perfect world, I'll take the following senario instead:

This speech will destroy what *little* credibility this Administration and their paid sychophants in the media have left after 5 years of non stop BS and we can finally get something resembling an honest debate going before midterm elections rear their ugly heads.

Granted, there is still 30-40% of the public that still believes Bush and the Neo-Cons, but they probably also believe in the tooth fairy and Adam Smith's "fair and balanced" invisible hand of the market place. Oye

I just can't imagine what might have caused all of those Patriotic G.I. Joes and Janes to have sat on their hands. Oh yeah, maybe this...

With Iraq once more atop the political agenda, the Senate on Wednesday gave hasty approval to an additional $1.5 billion for the Department of Veterans Affairs, to cover a budget gap caused in part by unexpected demands for health care by returning Iraqi veterans. The administration has reversed itself, and now plans to seek emergency money from both the House and the Senate. Before the Senate voted unanimously to raise the spending for health care, the head of the veterans administration returned to Capitol Hill on Wednesday to tell House members that, contrary to his testimony the previous day, the agency needs emergency financing for this year and the administration will be submitting a request.

Oh yeah.... to paraphrase what a famous American once said... "Reality is a stubborn thing."

Wiki Open Thread

What DVDs are you renting this weekend? Got Planz for the holiday? Cookout in the works?

Check out the Flu Wiki, which is developing an enthusiastic community of contributors, it rocks. If you haven't read CanadaSue yet, you are behind on your Internets. This is long and demanding reading, but it might be the most important thing you read this year. I read it today, stunned by the thoughtful creativity of the Flu Wiki community. She's amazing, but you are going to need time to read her whole imagined scenario. She's worth it. This is stunning work.

As the publisher and one of the editors of the wiki, I can tell you in all humility that we don't have this thing completely worked out yet, but we are learning with the community. There are all kinds of edges and dimensions to discover with this new tool, and we are learning and growing (and making mistakes) as we go. Please be patient, and we'll extend the same to you. We are doing this together and that's the point. We're going to survive H5N1 together, too. Wiki is a community tool and not always a wieldy one. Hmm, just like community. Dem, Revere and I are nearly tied to our computers as we learn how to be editors who have to adjust on the fly.

I've been more sick than not since Sunday, so I can't promise you when my first article will go up, it's been sitting on my task bar since last Saturday but I've been feeling too shitty to do anything with the draft. Maybe tomorrow. Visit for the other contributers and be one. It'll take you a little time clicking around the various features of the site to find the things you want, there is a lot there in content, and in opportunities for contributing. I'm still learning the way around myself, but this is a powerful tool and worth the time.

Some of the finest science writers on the planet have already shown up with content, if you want to be a reader. If you want to be a contributor, think about what fine company you'll be in.

The Canadian Press will have an article about us next week. I'll put up a link when it is posted.

If you read Flu Wiki, you are ahead of the curve. H5N1 might be phhhthtt. I certainly hope so. But what if it isn't?

Army of One

Army Recruiting Improves in June

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: June 29, 2005

Filed at 4:49 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Army has exceeded its recruiting goal for June after four months of shortfalls, Pentagon officials said Wednesday.

Still, the service is far behind its annual goal of 80,000 recruits.

Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a town-hall meeting of Pentagon personnel that the recruiting picture had improved.

''I will tell you that, for the month of June, United States Army active recruiting is over 100 percent of its goal, which is a turnaround from where they've been in the last several months,'' he said. ''So there's a bit of good news in here, and we'll see how it works out the rest of the year.''

Pentagon officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the Army has not formally announced its numbers, said the Army Reserve also met its recruiting goal in June.

The Army's goal for its active-duty force June was 5,650 recruits; so far, more than 6,150 signed up, the officials said, citing preliminary statistics from recruiting stations.

The Army Reserve hoped to sign up 3,610; it has barely exceeded that goal, the officials said.

There were no figures available for the Army National Guard, which is also well behind its annual goal.

The active-duty Army is still 7,800 recruits behind its year-to-date goal. The service hoped to recruit 80,000 into its ranks between Oct. 1, 2004, and this Sept. 30.

The Army also missed its monthly targets in April, March and February. Each month was worse than the one before. In February it fell 27 percent short; in March the gap was 31 percent, and in April it was 42 percent.

In May, the Army fell about 25 percent short of its target of signing up 6,700 recruits. The gap would have been even wider but for the fact that the target was lowered by 1,350. The June target was not lowered, officials said.

The Army Reserve is more than 2,350 behind its year-to-date goal. Reserve forces throughout the military have been missing recruiting goals.

Pentagon officials attributed the increase in recruits to the end of the school year. The summer months are typically when the services draw the most interest. The higher goals in the coming month reflect that.

The media still hasn't announced the casualty total from yesterday's chopper shoot-down. A couple of mass casualty situations like that will be enough to knock a hole in recruiting.

Never make them think

This is a rule I've learned as a tech writer. And it applies almost everywhere except in puzzles.

Think about the conclusion that you want the other person to reach, and state it directly. Don't give them the information and make them draw the obvious conclusion. Sounds obvious, but so often people expect the listener to make a tiny jump of logic. And the listener often doesn't do it.

Wrong: "Pressing the red button stops the machine."
Right: "Press the red button to stop the machine."
Even better: "To stop the machine, press the red button."

I've written things both ways and when I used the wrong version, taken tech support calls along the lines of "how do I stop the machine?" Yes, there are people who don't make the jump. No, they aren't stupid, not all of them. They have other things on their minds. They have a job to do, and reading the manual isn't the job. If I were writing a novel or an essay, I might include a thought-provoking item, a kind of puzzle, in order to bring the reader to a deeper understanding or just amuse the reader. In a manual, if I make my reader think I have screwed up. Writing without expecting the reader to think is harder than it sounds. Much harder.

Wrong: "I'd like the salt, please."
Right: "Please pass the salt."

In the first one, I'm informing you of my state of mind - desire for salt - and expecting you to make the tiny logical jump - I want you to pass the salt. In the second, I'm not expecting you to think. This example is no big deal - except that I've seen families get into fights that could have been prevented just that easily.

There are bigger examples. During the 2004 Presidential campaign, reversing tax cuts was a big issue for the Democrats. They expected the voters to understand that tax cuts for one group must be made up by tax increases on another, cuts in spending, or deficits. So the tax cuts are bad. Wrong. Tax cuts feel good. Tax cuts ARE good - the consequences may not be worth it but the cut itself is good. A tax cut is always a good thing. The tax cuts under discussion are part of a disasterous fiscal policy, and there is no way to include huge tax cuts in a responsible budget at this time. If I go home tonight and find a Ferrari in my driveway, a gift from my wife, the Ferrari is a fabulous wonderful thing - but I will not be happy, because of the financial consequences. Do I hate the Ferrari? Hell no. I hate the payments, the insurance, the maintainance. Love the car. What the Democrats were really against wasn't the tax cuts, but the consequences of the tax cuts. They expected voters to think and make the tiny logical jump. They said they were against the tax cuts - are you against tax cuts? Do you like taxes? You think about it and you understand it's a little more complicated than that, but some percentage isn't going to think about it. Some percentage of the voters was entirely in agreement with the Democratic position and voted against them because the Democrats expected them to think and they didn't. The exact same policy, described in terms of debt, of middle-class tax hikes (yep, those are in the works, in the form of reduced and eliminated deductions) of cut programs, might have made a difference.

Cross posted from my own blog Exceive

Fairy Tales

World War III

By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Wednesday, June 29, 2005; 12:24 PM

President Bush last night offered no new evidence to dissuade the growing majorities of Americans who believe that the United States is bogged down in Iraq, that the war was a mistake in the first place, and that he has no clear plan to bring troops home.

His prime-time speech did, however, contain a bold rhetorical shift. The president who took his country to war in Iraq on account of nonexistent weapons of mass destruction, then recast the invasion as a pro-democracy move, is now arguing that Iraq is ground zero for World War III, the battle against terror that began on Sept. 11, 2001.

And having failed to capture or kill the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, the president who has been notoriously averse to even mentioning his name out loud last night actually quoted Osama bin Laden in support of the speech's central argument.

"Hear the words of Osama bin Laden," Bush said: " 'This Third World War is raging' in Iraq."

Aside from Bush's repeated invocation of Sept. 11, there was no looking back in his speech, and certainly no admission of error. No acknowledgement that his fixation on Iraq may have let bin Laden get away, or that his own acts created the conditions in Iraq in which terrorists and their supporters are flourishing.

There was also no talk of the unfound weapons of mass destruction, or of the growing credibility gap fueled in part by the Downing Street memos, which suggest that Bush misled the public about Iraq in the run-up to a war that he craved.

And in spite of all the clamoring, there was no exit strategy. Although press secretary Scott McClellan had promised that Bush would "talk in a very specific way about the way forward," the only forward-looking talk was incredibly vague.

"We're building up Iraqi security forces as quickly as possible," Bush said. "We will stay in Iraq as long as we are needed, and not a day longer."

Bush was greeted with stony, untelegenic silence by the troops the White House had gathered at Ft. Bragg to serve as his audience. There was only one outburst of applause, apparently provoked by a member of Bush's own advance team.

I find Froomkin refreshing. He calls it like it is without all of the fudging language the WaPo ed page uses.

In a Nutshell

From WaPo's Joel Achenbabach's Achenblog:

Iraq: A Schedule Instead of a Battle Plan

The other day at a social event I found myself talking to an Administration official about the war. He didn't mention anything about combat, or anything that might be defined as "military action." No, he talked about The Schedule. We have to keep to the schedule, he said. There's a schedule that's been in place for transferring sovereignty, holding elections, and, next up, writing a constitution. We have a schedule instead of a battle plan.

This is a political war now. Success or failure depends on political events in Iraq and in the United States. Never has it been more obvious that war is an extension of politics by other means. The insurgents are betting the Americans will go wobbly. Bush says he, for one, won't flinch, and that is what presidents have to say in a situation like this. He can't very well say, "Hell's bells, have I made a hash out of this one! This is one coyote-ugly war! Last man out of Iraq, turn off the lights!"

Here's what the president did say: "So our strategy going forward has both a military track and a political track." Sophisticated observers should email me with an explanation of what the military track is, exactly. Strategic leafletting? Or are we going to root out the insurgents from their rat-holes one by one? Doesn't look like there are a lot of chances for a general to point to a map and say, "Right here, we'll invade at dawn." Or: "Here, we'll hit them with the heavy armor." Instead we've got the most highly trained fighting force in the world trying to play urban Whack-a-Mole. And there's an apparently endless number of moles.

It's slightly worrisome when a president in wartime starts talking like a Political Science professor:

"The assembly plans to expand its constitutional drafting committee to include more Sunni Arabs. Many Sunnis who opposed the January elections are now taking part in the democratic process, and that is essential to Iraq's future," Bush said last night. So perhaps the 82nd Airborne can do something to ensure that the committee assignments are properly distributed. Let the leafletting begin!

Even newspaper bloggers get snarky.

Spiffy

WashPo's In the Loop columnist Al Kamen is alway entertaining and sometimes wise on the kooky folkways of "inside the beltway" people. He has a funny squib in this morning's column, with photo (on the link.)

Watch Out, Tiger -- Here Comes Rehnquist

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist did not retire on Monday when the court finished its term. He looked pretty good, especially in that snappy Nike cap, complete with the swoosh. This led to speculation he may be staying on to work out a product-endorsement deal with the sportswear giant. Something like "Lids for All Ages," or maybe "You're Never Too Old for Nike"?

But the smart money is still solid that Rehnquist will retire soon, both to give the administration a chance to fill the seat and to have the court at full strength by October and through the next term.

More Mistakes

Arrested Development

By ARLIE HOCHSCHILD
Published: June 29, 2005

Berkeley, Calif.

Under international law, the line between childhood and maturity is 18. In communications with Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, the Pentagon has lowered the cutoff to 16. For this reason among others, we don't know exactly how many Iraqi children are in American custody. But before the transfer of sovereignty from the Coalition Provisional Authority to an Iraqi interim government a year ago, the International Committee of the Red Cross reported registering 107 detainees under 18 during visits to six prisons controlled by coalition troops. Some detainees were as young as 8.

Since that time, Human Rights Watch reports that the number has risen. The figures from Afghanistan are still more alarming: the journalist Seymour Hersh wrote last month in the British newspaper The Guardian that a memo addressed to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld shortly after the 2001 invasion reported "800-900 Pakistani boys 13-15 years of age in custody."

Juvenile detainees in American facilities like Abu Ghraib and Bagram Air Base have been subject to the same mistreatment as adults. The International Red Cross, Amnesty International and the Pentagon itself have gathered substantial testimony of torture of children, bolstered by accounts from soldiers who witnessed or participated in the abuse.

According to Amnesty International, 13-year-old Mohammed Ismail Agha was arrested in Afghanistan in late 2002 and detained without charge or trial for over a year, first at Bagram and then at Guantánamo Bay. He was held in solitary confinement and subjected to sleep deprivation. "Whenever I started to fall asleep, they would kick at my door and yell at me to wake up," he told an Amnesty researcher. "They made me stand partway, with my knees bent, for one or two hours."

A Canadian, Omar Khadr, was 15 in 2002 when he was captured in Afghanistan and interned at Guantánamo. For 2½ years, he was allowed no contact with a lawyer or with his family. Seventeen-year-old Akhtar Mohammed told Amnesty that he was kept in solitary confinement in a shipping container for eight days in Afghanistan in January 2002.

A Pentagon investigation last year by Maj. Gen. George Fay reported that in January 2004, a leashed but unmuzzled military guard dog was allowed into a cell holding two children. The intention was for the dog to " 'go nuts on the kids,' barking and scaring them." The children were screaming and the smaller one tried to hide behind the larger, the report said, as a soldier allowed the dog to get within about one foot of them. A girl named Juda Hafez Ahmad told Amnesty International that when she was held in Abu Ghraib she "saw one of the guards allow his dog to bite a 14-year-old boy on the leg."

Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, formerly in charge of Abu Ghraib, told Maj. General Fay about visiting a weeping 11-year-old detainee in the prison's notorious Cellblock 1B, which housed prisoners designated high risk. "He told me he was almost 12," General Karpinski recalled, and that "he really wanted to see his mother, could he please call his mother."

Children like this 11 year old held at Abu Ghraib have been denied the right to see their parents, a lawyer, or anyone else. They were not told why they were detained, let alone for how long. A Pentagon spokesman told Mr. Hersh that juveniles received some special care, but added, "Age is not a determining factor in detention." The United States has found, the spokesman said, that "age does not necessarily diminish threat potential."

It's true that some of these children may have picked up a stone or a gun. But coalition intelligence officers told the Red Cross that 70 percent to 90 percent of detainees in Iraq are eventually found innocent and released. Many innocent children are swept up with their parents in chaotic nighttime dragnets based on tips from unreliable informants. "We know of children under 15," Clarisa Bencomo of Human Rights Watch told me, " held for over a year at Guantánamo Bay, whom the government later said were not security risks." Even if a child is found guilty, he or she should be treated humanely, rather than tortured or "rendered," as the C.I.A. puts it, to third parties that torture.

AMBASSADOR MILLER is right. Children matter. To really place them "at the center" of our human rights concerns, the United States should hasten to ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child, from which only we and Somalia abstain. And if the Pentagon must detain children, it should do so in separate facilities, with access to family, and under humane conditions that include the offer of rehabilitation and education.

We sweep entire families up in midnite raids and we are wondering how to detain the children? Perhaps we shouldn't be detaining them at all. Maybe this entire strategy needs to be rethought. After all, it doesn't seem to be working, does it?

Blame Shifting

President Bush's Speech About Iraq
Published: June 29, 2005

President Bush told the nation last night that the war in Iraq was difficult but winnable. Only the first is clearly true. Despite buoyant cheerleading by administration officials, the military situation is at best unimproved. The Iraqi Army, despite Mr. Bush's optimistic descriptions, shows no signs of being able to control the country without American help for years to come. There are not enough American soldiers to carry out the job they have been sent to do, yet the strain of maintaining even this inadequate force is taking a terrible toll on the ability of the United States to defend its security on other fronts around the world.

We did not expect Mr. Bush would apologize for the misinformation that helped lead us into this war, or for the catastrophic mistakes his team made in running the military operation. But we had hoped he would resist the temptation to raise the bloody flag of 9/11 over and over again to justify a war in a country that had nothing whatsoever to do with the terrorist attacks. We had hoped that he would seize the moment to tell the nation how he will define victory, and to give Americans a specific sense of how he intends to reach that goal - beyond repeating the same wishful scenario that he has been describing since the invasion.

Sadly, Mr. Bush wasted his opportunity last night, giving a speech that only answered questions no one was asking. He told the nation, again and again, that a stable and democratic Iraq would be worth American sacrifices, while the nation was wondering whether American sacrifices could actually produce a stable and democratic Iraq.

Given the way this war was planned and executed, the president does not have any good options available, and if American forces were withdrawn, Iraq would probably sink into a civil war that would create large stretches of no man's land where private militias and stateless terrorists could operate with impunity. But if Mr. Bush is intent on staying the course, it will take years before the Iraqi government and its military are able to stand on their own. Most important of all - despite his lofty assurance last night that in the end the insurgents "cannot stop the advance of freedom" - all those years of effort and suffering could still end with the Iraqis turning on each other, or deciding that the American troops were the ultimate enemy after all. The critical challenge is to gauge, with a clear head, exactly when and if the tipping point arrives and the American presence is only making a terrible situation worse.
....
Pressure from the Bush administration for the government to do better has increased since the State Department took control of Iraq policy from the Pentagon. But there is much more to do, and the president needed to show the American people that he is not giving the Iraqi politicians a blank check to fritter away their opportunities.

Listening to Mr. Bush offer the usual emotional rhetoric about the advance of freedom and the sacrifice of American soldiers, our thoughts went back to some of the letters we received in anticipation of the speech. One was from the brother of a fallen Marine, who said he did not want Mr. Bush to say the war should continue in order to keep faith with the men and women who have died fighting it. "We do not need more justifications for the war. We need an effective strategy to win it," he wrote. Another letter came from an opponent of the invasion who urged the American left to "get over its anger over President Bush's catastrophic blunder" and start trying to figure out how to win the conflict that exists.

Warfighting really is hard work and shouldn't be entered into lightly. Bushco, unfortunately, thinks that it is some sort of game, pieces that you move around on a board. Meeting with the widows and family members is really hard work for someone who has no empathy and sent their family member into war for no reason that we've heard of yet.

By the way, NYT letter writer, it is not my job, nor any other commentater's, to figure out how to win this war. Those of us who counseled against it in the first place were told that we were traitors. Bush got us into this mess, it is up to him and his minions to figure out how to get us out. The fact that he's made a mess of it is a judgement on him, not on us.

In Country

Chris Allbritton is Back to Iraq 3.0" as an independent journalist. He writes:

News flash: Iraq is a disaster. I've been back one day, and the airport road was the worst I've ever seen it. We had to go around a fire-fight between mujahideen and Americans while Iraqi forces sat in the shade of date palms on the side of the road, their rifles resting across their laps. My driver pointed to a group of men in a white pickup next to me. “They are mujahideen,” he said. “They are watching the Americans.” Indeed, they were, and so intently that they paid no attention to me in the car next to them. We detoured around two possible car bombs that had been cordoned off while Iraqis cautiously approached.

Rumsfeld's assessment of “good progress” on the constitution is not accurate, as the committee to draw it up still hasn't completely agreed on how the Sunnis will take part.

When I was in Ramadi, I found the morale to be lower than expected. It wasn't rock-bottom among the Marines of the 1st Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, but it wasn't great. Most of the ones I talked to weren't confident they were doing anything worthwhile, and were instead focused on getting home alive. If a few Iraqis had to die to make that happen, well, war is hell.

I'm not sure who's winning this war, the Americans or the insurgents. But I know who is losing it: the Iraqi people. Those bumps in the road are their graves.

Around the Net

The Philly Daily News' Will Bunch, blogging at "Attytood," asks the question:

Why is Bush continuing to mention 9/11 in his speeches about Iraq? Well, because he learned in 2003 that it works. Lets see if the talking heads call him on this hideous slice of baloney this time around.

Um, Will? Have you lost your freakin' mind?

Media Connections

Suburban Guerrilla has been on a real tear the last 48 hours or so. I wanted to make a quick mention of a post that has scrolled off of her front page.

Susie found a very interesting study on the corporate media that really connects the dots on exactly how truely corporate the media really has become.

We can continue to have endless round robin discussions on how to frame messages and the like, but so long as the primary organs of information are this tightly meshed together, I seriously doubt things will change that much.

Or look at it this way.... Bush's popularity ratings right now rank slightly above the percentage of the population who thought Catwoman was worth paying full ticket price to see in the theatre, yet the media continues to treat him like he walks on water and can do no wrong (almost like Reagan except without the funny Hollywood stories & the hair gell). Even most hard core Conservatives will admit that Iraq really isn't going as well as they would like and some will even tell you, quietly behind closed doors so their neighbors won't hear, that there probably weren't ever WMD's.

The media's not going to change overnight, but they did notice the huge stink people raised the last time they tried to publicly ram more media consolidation down our throats. Now is the time to press them and to get them to focus on the important issues and not bury them on page A 12 behind shark attacks and lost Boy Scouts.

The Speech

One of his weakest speeches. He accomplished nothing which he needed to do: no sense that there is a strategy, a metric, a sense of there being any correction to plan which is clearly not working. He asserts as fact many things which are in dispute. There was nothing new. He's out of ideas.

Your thoughts?

Is it worth it?

Bush to acknowledge doubts in Iraq strategy

Tue Jun 28, 2005 05:16 PM ET
By Steve Holland

FORT BRAGG, N.C. (Reuters) - In a nationally televised speech, President Bush will acknowledge doubts about his Iraq war strategy but argue that it is worth it a year after the much-trumpeted U.S. transfer of power to Iraqis gave way to an endless stream of death.

"We have more work to do, and there will be tough moments that test America's resolve," Bush planned to say in an 8 p.m. (0000 GMT) speech. "We are fighting against men with blind hatred, and armed with lethal weapons, who are capable of any atrocity."

No significant shift in course was expected from Bush, whose approval ratings have fallen to the lowest levels of his presidency in part because of growing fears about Iraq.

Instead, he planned to plead for patience, insisting that U.S. troops will stay in Iraq until sufficient number of Iraqi military units are trained to defend against an insurgency that on Tuesday assassinated a prominent member of the Iraqi parliament and killed two U.S. soldiers.

"Amid all this violence, I know Americans ask the question: Is the sacrifice worth it? It is worth it, and it is vital to the future security of our country," Bush planned to say.

A Washington Post-ABC News poll found most Americans did not believe the administration's assertions of impressive gains against the insurgency. But a clear majority said they were willing to keep U.S. forces there for an extended time to stabilize the country.

The White House said Bush will acknowledge the tough fighting and suicide bombings in Iraq but will also explain "why the terrorists are failing."

"The terrorists can kill the innocent -- but they cannot stop the advance of freedom," Bush will say.

He will cite the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, as a reason for staying the course. No connection between Saddam Hussein and the Sept. 11 attacks was ever established, but the White House now calls Iraq the central front in the war on terrorism in part because the insurgency is led by Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who has sworn allegiance to al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

"The only way our enemies can succeed is if we forget the lessons of Sept. 11, if we abandon the Iraqi people to men like Zarqawi and if we yield the future of the Middle East to men like bin Laden," Bush will say.

Worth it? Worth breaking our armed forces? Worth trashing our allies? Worth impoverishing our nation? Worth believing every lie? Worth what?

No Getting Away

Great. Just what I don't need.

Wilderness connection
# Wireless service has come to California campgrounds, for those who don't really want to get away.

By David Colker, Times Staff Writer

Ah, wilderness: clean air, mountain vistas, star-filled sky and broadband Internet access with e-mail, music downloads, news feeds, stock tickers, sports updates, streaming radio, movie trailers, poker sites, celebrity gossip and information on just about everything. You can even read all about the nature around you in lieu of experiencing it.

Yes, all the wonders of the Internet are now — or will soon be — available at a state campground near you. Last winter, the California Department of Parks and Recreation partnered with San Antonio-based communications giant SBC to offer wireless Internet access at 59 state-owned campgrounds. SBC has already made similar connections at state parks in Michigan.

Because it is such a novel concept — and one so seemingly at odds with the camping experience — I had to see for myself how it works. The concession agreement between the parks department and SBC was widely touted with initial reports saying that the entire installation would be complete by the end of this month. So far, the service, formally called SBC FreedomLink Service, has been installed in 11 camps, and state officials say it will be the end of the summer by the time they're completed.

The system has been designed to work like the wireless (WiFi) hotspots in coffee shops, hotel lobbies and airports, ensuring that laptop-toting Internet fiends never need go long without an online fix.

The first state campground to go digital was the hugely popular, vast site at San Elijo State Beach that got the service Jan. 19. The park, located off S. Coast Highway 101 near Cardiff-by-the-Sea, sits on bluffs above a narrow stretch of beach. For purists who hate the idea of the digital world encroaching on this sliver of surf and sand, fear not: The SBC FreedomLink Service here is hardly enticing because of its severe technology limitations.

"We've had lots of people asking about it," said Dave Riley, 21, who works at the park. But Riley, a student majoring in recreation administration at San Diego State University, said the WiFi service was elusive at best. "I'm not sure anybody has actually been able to hook up to it," he said.

A ranger at San Elijo said she'd also gotten a lot of inquiries since the system was installed, but she had not heard of anyone successfully getting online in the park, leading her to speculate that the system might already be broken.

Shirley Claire is one of the few camp dwellers who has actually used the system, and she has some advice: "Get as close to the camp store as you can." Claire, 52, has been living at San Elijo in her RV for several weeks and is a park host.

Her determination to go online led her to briefly park in one of the 20-minute spaces in front of the camp store, near the small antenna that transmits the WiFi.

"I got a signal!" she said triumphantly.

I found that the best reception seemed to be in the coin-operated laundry room next to the store. Indeed, with my laptop perched on a folding table, I could Web surf while watching actual surfers through the windows.

I'm going camping this summer in no small part to get away from the keyboard and to try to learn to write long hand again (my handwriting, never very legible, has really gone downhill now that I'm keyboard only) as well as getting away from the schedule I've established for myself here. Sometimes you just gotta shake things up a bit to get re-created. Please, please, Province of Ontario, please don't WiFi your parks until after I'm gone.

Time to Go

Command Responsibility

By Andrew J. Bacevich

Tuesday, June 28, 2005; Page A15

Who "lost" Iraq? With blame for the unhappy course of events since U.S. forces occupied Baghdad in April 2003 routinely heaped on civilian officials, the military itself has gotten a pass. In fact, senior U.S. commanders have botched the war. Acknowledging that fact is an essential first step toward improving the quality of U.S. generalship.

For this reason, reported plans to promote Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez deserve particular attention. According to media reports, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld intends to nominate Sanchez for a fourth star. But the general does not merit promotion; he can best serve his country by retiring forthwith.
....
When Sanchez assumed command of U.S. and coalition ground forces in Iraq in June 2003, the insurgency was barely in its infancy. When he left Iraq a year later, it was raging all but out of control. By any measure -- estimated number of enemy fighters, frequency of attacks, Iraqi civilian casualties and U.S. troop losses sustained -- conditions in Iraq worsened appreciably during Sanchez's tenure in command. His task was to provide security; his efforts produced chaos.

Historians will remember Sanchez as the William Westmoreland of the Iraq war -- the general who misunderstood the nature of the conflict he faced and thereby played into the enemy's hands. Vowing in December 2003 to use "whatever combat power is necessary to win," Sanchez echoed promises of victory made by Westmoreland in Saigon a generation earlier. "That's what America expects of me," Sanchez declared, "and that's what I'm going to accomplish."

But victory is precisely what he did not accomplish. Combat power as such was never the answer. Indeed, as with Westmoreland, whose doctrine of search-and-destroy committed U.S. forces to an unwinnable war of attrition, Sanchez fought his war in ways that turned out to be monumentally wrongheaded. His kick-down-the-door tactics served only to harden resistance to the U.S. occupation. Rather than winning Iraqi hearts and minds, he alienated them.

Critics fault the Bush administration for not having provided U.S. commanders with enough "boots on the ground." This, they say, accounts for the current stalemate. Such an interpretation conforms nicely to the reigning demands of political correctness, absolving the military of any responsibility for its current predicament. But it will not wash. The principal defect of the war effort is not that field commanders have lacked sufficient troops. The real problem is that they -- and Sanchez in particular -- have never devised an effective strategy.

In Baghdad this month, the senior U.S. military spokesman announced that it was time "to concede that . . . this insurgency is not going to be settled . . . through military options or military operations," tacitly acknowledging that the exertions of the past two years had failed. In that acknowledgment lies the definitive judgment of what Sanchez -- although not he alone -- has wrought.

There is no doubt that Sanchez, an honorable man, did his best under extraordinarily trying circumstances. But his best wasn't good enough. He did not get the job done. It's time to recognize that and to make way for leaders who can. American soldiers deserve no less.

In fact, it has been stunning how incompetent all of the senior leadership has been, across the board.

Downhill All the Way

Britain's The Independent illustrates Patrick Cockburn's article on the state of Iraq today with this handy reference chart. Keep it in front of you while you listen to Bush try to change the subject tonight.

Then and now

Average daily attacks by insurgents

Pre-war March 2003: 0

Handover June 2004: 45

Now: 70

Analysis:

Figures should be viewed with caution because US military often does not record attacks if there are no American casualties.

Total number of coalition troops killed

Pre-war March 2003: 0

Handover June 2004: 982

Now: 1,930

Analysis:

Number of US troops killed increased sharply during Fallujah fighting in April and November 2004.

Iraqi civilians killed

Pre-war March 2003: n/a

Handover June 2004: 10,000

Now: 60,800 (includes 23,000 crime-related deaths)

Analysis:

Estimates of Iraqi civilian deaths have varied widely because the US military does not count them.

Electricity supply (megawatts generated)

Pre-war March 2003: 3,958

Handover June 2004: 4,293

Now: 4,035

Analysis:

Coalition is way behind its goal of providing 6,000 megawatts by July 2004. Most Iraqis do not have a reliable electricity supply.

Unemployed

Pre-war March 2003: n/a

Handover June 2004: 40%

Now: 40%

Analysis:

More than a third of young people are unemployed, a cause for social unrest. Many security men stay home, except on payday.

Telephones

Pre-war March 2003: 833,000 (landlines only)

Handover June 2004: 1.2m (includes mobiles)

Now: 3.1m

Analysis:

Landlines are extremely unreliable and mobile phone system could be improved.

Primary school access

Pre-war March 2003: 3.6m

Handover June 2004: 4.3m

Now: n/a

Analysis:

83 per cent of boys and 79 per cent of girls in primary schools. But figures mask declining literacy and failure rate.

Oil production (barrels a day)

Pre-war March 2003: 2.5m

Handover June 2004: 2.29m

Now: 2.20m

Analysis:

Sustainability of Iraqi oilfields has been jeopardised to boost output. Oil facilities regularly targeted by insurgents.

Tony's Troubles

via Juan Cole, who interprets the data the same way I do. This is going to be a terrible political problem for Tony Blair:

Bush warns Blair he must boost UK forces

BRIAN BRADY
WESTMINSTER EDITOR

BRITAIN is coming under sustained pressure from American military chiefs to keep thousands of troops in Iraq - while going ahead with plans to boost the front line against a return to "civil war" in Afghanistan.

Tony Blair was warned that war-torn Iraq remains on the brink of disaster - more than two years after the removal of Saddam Hussein - during his summit with President Bush in Washington earlier this month.

Scotland on Sunday revealed last month that Blair is preparing to rush thousands more British troops to Afghanistan in a bid to stop the country sliding towards civil war, amid warnings the coalition faces a "complete strategic failure" in the effort to rebuild the nation.

The grim prognosis was underlined last night by Afghanistan's defence minister, who warned that Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network was regrouping and planned to bring Iraq-style bloodshed to the country.

Rahim Wardak warned of the threat as the Taliban said they had captured 11 Afghan troops, a senior policeman and a district chief in a district of Kandahar where US and Afghan forces staged an anti-guerrilla operation just days earlier.

Britain's military chief in Kabul last week confirmed that the 8,000-strong UK presence in Iraq would be scaled down to enable more troops to be diverted to the struggle against a resurgent Taliban.

But despite fears that the security situation in Afghanistan was deteriorating, the Americans have now launched a determined rearguard action to ensure Iraq does not suffer from a switch in Britain's military focus.

"The Prime Minister was given a pretty depressing run-down of the prognosis for Iraq while he was in Washington," one senior Ministry of Defence source said last night. "The Americans are pushing for at least a maintenance of the troop numbers we have there now. Our latest intention is to reduce by at least half the number of our troops in Iraq within a year.

"It's difficult to see how we can square that circle."

The appeal to Blair confirms Washington's growing unease about the security of Iraq. Bush is coming under increasing pressure at home to present an "exit strategy" for American troop from Iraq.

Last night it was revealed that American officials have held secret face-to-face talks with Iraqi insurgents in a bid to diffuse the violent opposition in the country.

The negotiations are aimed at isolating the foreign Islamic militants who have flooded the country to wage a holy war against the US.

But the suggestion that Britain should extend its overseas military commitments still further emerged as the government was warned that more than a third of the military was not ready to go on active operations.

A disturbing National Audit Office report warned of potential crisis because so many troops are deployed in operations overseas. But planners at the UK military's Northolt headquarters have drawn up emergency plans to send up to 5,500 troops to Afghanistan to help avert a descent into more widespread bloodshed.

The British public grows more anti-war as time goes on. Blair is going to have a very hard time holding a government if he accedes to Bush's demands. This was all predictable. I've been waiting for weeks for this story to surface.

Waiting for the SCOTUS

Anticipation of a Vacancy, but Silence Says Not Yet

By TODD S. PURDUM
Published: June 28, 2005

WASHINGTON, June 27 - Article III of the Constitution specifies that justices of the Supreme Court "shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour," and Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist's was punctilious on Monday as he adjourned the court for the summer. He kidded his colleagues about a raft of dissents. He thanked court employees for "outstanding work and dedication to duty."

But he said not a word - at least in public - about one of the day's most anticipated potential decisions: whether he plans to be on the bench when the court reconvenes on the first Monday in October.

That left the armies of interest groups poised for a thunderous fight over Chief Justice Rehnquist's successor, the regiment of newscasters bivouacked on the steps of the Supreme Court anticipating a vacancy, and the hundreds of people who began lining up at 1 a.m. hoping for a front-row seat to history hearing only the sound of silence.

Has Chief Justice Rehnquist, 80 and ill with thyroid cancer, already resigned in a secret letter to President Bush? Will he step down later this week? Will he take his time and mull over a decision this summer? If anyone in Washington knew, no one was saying.

"I'm not going to go down that road," said the White House press secretary, Scott McClellan, when asked if the White House had been notified of any vacancy. "I wouldn't read anything into it one way or the other. If, obviously, there is something to announce, I imagine it would come out of the Supreme Court."

Seldom has the capital been so spoiling for a fight, and seldom has the only person with the power to ring the opening bell been so Sphinx-like. The combination has put senators and interest groups into a strange state of suspended animation.

The conservative Federalist Society has been flying lawyers from around the country to Washington for media training on how to talk about a nominee. Direct-mail companies on both sides have drafts of fund-raising letters awaiting only the name of a retiree and nominee.

"I think it means 'stay tuned,' " said Thaddeus E. Strom, the former Republican chief counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee. "There is still time this week."

There is no set protocol for Supreme Court retirements. Some justices have made the announcements on the final day of a term, while others have done so days or weeks later. When Justice Thurgood Marshall announced his retirement 14 years ago, he did so in a letter to the first President Bush that was made public about 2½ hours after the court adjourned for the summer.

This is actually a fairly canny article. Purdum did his homework. It is true that advocacy organizations on both ends of the political spectrum have their lobbiest armies and advertising dollars ready to go to work (I'm part of the effort on the left). The Right has a highly coordinated strategy which includes the RNC ready to go to the mattresses. I obtained some of their documents a couple of weeks ago. The strategy outlined in those documents calls for the announcement of a vacancy and a new nominee being held until the beginning of September. Several news outlets have speculated about this in recent weeks. Time will tell, won't it?

Nation-building

A Tenuous Grip on Sovereignty
# A year after taking the formal reins of government, the Iraqis are far from having a sense of control over their own destiny.

By Borzou Daragahi, Times Staff Writer

BAGHDAD — On a busy commercial strip, U.S. soldiers cajole a ragged band of reluctant Iraqi army recruits to take charge of their own streets. In the highest corridors of power, U.S. officials press Iraqi politicians to meet political deadlines. A year after occupation authority head L. Paul Bremer III handed the formal reins to an appointed Iraqi government, private military firms contracted by the Pentagon continue to wield guns with scant regard for Iraqi authorities.

But long gone are the days when U.S. and British officials of Bremer's Coalition Provisional Authority controlled all aspects of the Iraqi state. Ministries that oversee Iraq's natural resources, energy reserves, schools, hospitals and finances have evolved over the last year into vigorous players in Iraq's daily life. And elected Iraqi politicians are devising their own constitution with little direct involvement by U.S. officials.

"We cannot any longer simply dictate, but have to lobby, persuade, cajole and implore," says Larry Diamond, a former Baghdad-based CPA official who is now a scholar at Stanford University's Hoover Institution. "At the same time, how independent can the government really be when it is still largely, in fact utterly, dependent on American troops for its security? Ultimately, full independence will only come when this dependence on the U.S. for security ends."

Bremer handed formal control of Iraq over to the interim government of former Prime Minister Iyad Allawi in a low-key June 28, 2004, ceremony that lasted less than 20 minutes. But the reality of Iraqis taking control of their own streets, government and borders has been a longer and more tangled story.

Sovereignty — a nation's control over its affairs and territories — is about symbols of national pride, and command over physical space and decision-making. U.S. Embassy officials continue to occupy the same Republican Palace from which Bremer, and Saddam Hussein before him, ran the country. It lies within the Green Zone, a four-square-mile fortress in the heart of the nation's capital controlled by the U.S. military.

Many Iraqi ministries are also within the Green Zone. Though the Western officials who ran them in the wake of the March 2003 invasion are now gone, new Westerners have taken on roles as advisors or consultants, some of them paid directly out of the Iraqi public treasury.

Washington officials visiting Baghdad last month acknowledged that they were pressuring Iraqis to move quickly toward drafting a constitution by an Aug. 15 deadline. Although Iraqis are making their own choices, the U.S. insists, for example, that Iraq remain unified and that the future government operate with laws respecting human rights and democratic principles.

I have generally respected Daragahi's reporting from Baghdad, but this story is partaking of Pentagon groupthink. Iraqi "sovereignty" is an illusion, something for an imagined future. We are an occupying force which dictates everything the puppets do and the Iraqis know it.

What sovereignty means is that they can tell us to go home. We aren't there yet.

Help Wanted

David Corn informs us:

Is this a sign of how bad things are in Iraq? NPR has posted a job announcement for a Baghdad "reporter"and a "correspondent" on journalismjobs.com. (A "correspondent" is a more senior position than a "reporter.") Within the world of journalism, war postings, despite the danger, are usually considered plum assignments. Was there nobody within NPR eager and ready to go to Baghdad? The salary for these positions was not specified.

I know I won't be applying.

Revisiting Downing Street

From Memos, Insights Into Ally's Doubts On Iraq War
British Advisers Foresaw Variety of Risks, Problems

By Glenn Frankel
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, June 28, 2005; Page A01

LONDON -- In the spring of 2002, two weeks before British Prime Minister Tony Blair journeyed to Crawford, Tex., to meet with President Bush at his ranch about the escalating confrontation with Iraq, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw sounded a prescient warning.

"The rewards from your visit to Crawford will be few," Straw wrote in a March 25 memo to Blair stamped "Secret and Personal." "The risks are high, both for you and for the Government."

In public, British officials were declaring their solidarity with the Bush administration's calls for elimination of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. But Straw's memo and seven other secret documents disclosed in recent months by British journalist Michael Smith together reveal a much different picture. Behind the scenes, British officials believed the U.S. administration was already committed to a war that they feared was ill-conceived and illegal and could lead to disaster.

The documents indicate that the officials foresaw a host of problems that later would haunt both governments -- including thin intelligence about the nature of the Iraqi threat, weak public support for war and a lack of planning for the aftermath of military action. British cabinet ministers, Foreign Office diplomats, senior generals and intelligence service officials all weighed in with concerns and reservations. Yet they could not dissuade their counterparts in the Bush administration -- nor, indeed, their own leader -- from going forward.

"I think there is a real risk that the administration underestimates the difficulties," David Manning, Blair's chief foreign policy adviser at the time, wrote to the prime minister on March 14, 2002, after he returned from meetings with Condoleezza Rice, then Bush's national security adviser, and her staff. "They may agree that failure isn't an option, but this does not mean they will necessarily avoid it."

A U.S. official with firsthand knowledge of the events said the concerns raised by British officials "played a useful role."

"Were they paid a tremendous amount of heed?" said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "I think it's hard to say they were."

Critics of the Bush administration contend the documents -- including the now-famous Downing Street Memo of July 23, 2002 -- constitute proof that Bush made the decision to go to war at least eight months before it began, and that the subsequent diplomatic campaign at the United Nations was a charade, designed to convince the public that war was necessary, rather than an attempt to resolve the crisis peacefully. They contend the documents have not received the attention they deserve.

Supporters of the administration contend, by contrast, that the memos add little or nothing to what is already publicly known about the run-up to the war and even help show that the British officials genuinely believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. They say that opponents of Bush and Blair are distorting the documents' meaning in order to attack both men politically.

But beyond the question of whether they constitute a so-called smoking gun of evidence against the White House, the memos offer an intriguing look at what the top officials of the United States' chief ally were thinking, doing and fearing in the months before the war.

This article is based on those memos, supplemented by interviews with officials on both sides of the Atlantic -- none of whom was willing to be cited by name because of the sensitivity of the issue -- and written accounts. Spokesmen for the Foreign Office and the prime minister's office declined to comment but did not question the authenticity of the documents.

Well, it is about damn time that the WaPo notices that we were lied to, on the morning of the day Bush addresses the nation on the Iraq mess. It would have been better if their damn White House reporter had asked some of these questions a few weeks back. Or before the war.

Flu Wiki Stretches it's Wings

I'll give an interview to The Canadian Press's Helen Branswell about bird flu and the Flu Wiki in the morning. I daresay that I'll have more to report later.

Hubbert's Peak

The Vanishing Mirage of Saudi Oil
# Dwindling reserves may end the Petroleum Age.

Consider the DOE's projections. Because of the rapidly growing international thirst for petroleum — much of it coming from the United States and Europe, but an increasing share from China, India and other developing nations — the world's expected requirement for petroleum is projected to jump from 77 million barrels per day in 2001 to 121 million barrels by 2025. Fortunately, says the DOE, global oil output will also rise by this amount in the years ahead. But over one-fourth of this additional oil — about 12.3 million barrels per day — will have to come from Saudi Arabia.

The problem is, if you take away Saudi Arabia's 12.3 million barrels, there is no possibility of satisfying anticipated world demand in 2025.

The Saudis vehemently deny their fields are in decline. The DOE, with no independent verification, backs them up. In the end, it comes down to this: America's entire energy strategy, with its commitment to an increased reliance on petroleum as the major source of our energy, rests on the unproven claims of Saudi oil producers that they can continuously increase Saudi output in accordance with the DOE predictions.

And this is where Simmons enters the picture, with his meticulously documented book, "Twilight in the Desert." Simmons is not a militant environmentalist or anti-oil partisan; he is chairman and CEO of one of the nation's leading oil-industry investment banks, Simmons & Co. International. For decades, he has been financing the exploration and development of new oil reservoirs. In the process, he has become a friend and associate of many of the top figures in the oil industry, including George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

Essentially, Simmons' argument boils down to four major points:

(1) Most of Saudi Arabia's oil output is generated by a few giant fields, of which Ghawar — the world's largest — is the most prolific.

(2) These giant fields were first developed 40 to 50 years ago, and have since given up much of their easily extracted petroleum.

(3) To maintain high levels of production in these major fields, the Saudis have come to rely increasingly on the use of water injection and other secondary recovery methods to compensate for the drop in natural field pressure.

(4) As time passes, the ratio of water to oil in these underground fields rises to the point where further oil extraction becomes difficult, if not impossible. To top it all off, there is very little reason to assume that future Saudi exploration will result in the discovery of new fields to replace those now in decline.

This being the case, Simmons concludes, it would be the height of folly to assume that the Saudis are capable of doubling their petroleum output in the years ahead, as projected by the DOE.

The moment that Saudi production goes into permanent decline in the not-too-distant future, the Petroleum Age as we know it will draw to a close. Oil will still be available on international markets, but not in the abundance to which we have become accustomed and not at a price that many of us will be able to afford. Transportation, and everything it affects — virtually the entire world economy — will be much more costly. The cost of food will also rise, as modern agriculture relies to an extraordinary extent on petroleum products for tilling, harvesting, protecting, processing and delivery. Many other products made with petroleum — paints, plastics, lubricants, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics and so forth — will also prove far more costly. Under these circumstances, a global economic contraction appears nearly inevitable.

Read the whole article, and I'm going to go out and get the book. I have long been pursuaded that the Saudi/Bush oil cartel has been selling us whoosh for a long time. My own estimates of Hubbert's Peak put it in the near future, not the far, 2007-2014. It will take a while for production to fall to the point where it will affect the global economy, but it will if we don't start making some serious preparation now. I don't see that happening.

Choosing Supremes

Supreme appointments

June 27, 2005

What a relief it would be for the entire nation if Bush sought to fill any Supreme Court vacancies, now or in the rest of his term, with judges who have demonstrated a passion for unraveling the facts and arguments before them rather than a zeal to impose their point of view. A crucial group of 14 senators -- Republicans and Democrats -- last month urged Bush and his advisers to consult with senators before making a formal nomination. ''Such a return to the early practices of our government may well serve to reduce the rancor that unfortunately accompanies the advice and consent process in the Senate," they said.

Their statement came as the 14 defused the ''nuclear option" threatened by the Senate majority leader, Bill Frist. Under this option, the Republican majority was prepared to use a dishonest interpretation of Senate rules to ram through the confirmation of right-wing judicial appointments. Despite the compromise, Frist didn't renounce the option, which remains a threat.

With Supreme Court nominees, or course, the stakes could not be higher. Justices now frequently serve 20 or 30 years -- Chief Justice William Rehnquist was appointed to the court in 1971 -- so the influence of presidents extends long after the voters have any recourse. With the court now closely divided on many issues, one or two new ideologues could alter the national fabric fundamentally. Remember, this is a court that has already snatched a national election out of the hands of Florida voters and election officials.

Recent Bush nominations, such as that of John Bolton to the United Nations and several appeals court candidates, show an inclination toward confrontation and a disdain for consensus. If that applies to the Supreme Court as well, those who fight the nominations will be the ultimate patriots.

If there is a vacancy, the decision will be up to Bush. Elected as a uniter, he could still reclaim a bit of that for the historical record. Or he could be one of the greatest presidential dividers ever.

Just a reminder that the fact that we've heard nothing so far today is meaningless. A retirement or retirements could come at any point between now and the beginning of the next term of the Court. I'm hearing rumors that the period around Labor Day weekend is a target.

I concur with the Boglo ed board this morning: chances are that Bush will choose ideological, divisive nominees, just as he has for the other federal courts.

5-4 Court

Supreme Court Rejects Appeal by Journalists in C.I.A. Leak Case

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: June 27, 2005

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court rejected appeals Monday from two journalists who have refused to testify before a grand jury about the leak of an undercover CIA officer's identity.

The cases asked the court to revisit an issue that it last dealt with more than 30 years ago -- whether reporters can be jailed or fined for refusing to identify their sources.

The justices' intervention had been sought by 34 states and many news groups, all arguing that confidentiality is important in news gathering.

"Important information will be lost to the public if journalists cannot reliably promise anonymity to sources," news organizations including The Associated Press told justices in court papers.

Time magazine's Matthew Cooper and The New York Times' Judith Miller, who filed the appeals, face up to 18 months in jail for refusing to reveal sources as part of an investigation into who divulged the name of CIA officer Valerie Plame.

Plame's name was first made public in 2003 by columnist Robert Novak, who cited unidentified senior Bush administration officials for the information. The column appeared after Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, wrote a newspaper opinion piece criticizing the Bush administration's claim that Iraq sought uranium in Niger.

Disclosure of an undercover intelligence officer's identity can be a federal crime and a government investigation is in its second year. No charges have been brought.

U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald of Chicago, the special counsel handling the probe, told justices that the only unfinished business is testimony from Cooper and Miller.

Cooper reported on Plame, while Miller gathered material for an article about the intelligence officer but never wrote a story.

A federal judge held the reporters in contempt last fall, and an appeals court rejected their argument that the First Amendment shielded them from revealing their sources in the federal criminal proceeding.

Something tells me we aren't going to learn anything new from this. Who did leak to Novak?\

Ten Commandments Disallowed in Courthouses
Supreme Court Rules, 5-4, That Such Religious Displays Violate the Separation of Church and State

By HOPE YEN
The Associated Press
Monday, June 27, 2005; 10:32 AM

WASHINGTON -- In a narrowly drawn ruling, the Supreme Court struck down Ten Commandments displays in courthouses Monday, holding that two exhibits in Kentucky crossed the line between separation of church and state because they promoted a religious message.

The 5-4 decision, first of two seeking to mediate the bitter culture war over religion's place in public life, took a case-by-case approach to this vexing issue. In the decision, the court declined to prohibit all displays in court buildings or on government property.

The justices left themselves legal wiggle room on this issue, however, saying that some displays _ like their own courtroom frieze _ would be permissible if they're portrayed neutrally in order to honor the nation's legal history.

But framed copies in two Kentucky courthouses went too far in endorsing religion, the court held.

"The touchstone for our analysis is the principle that the First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion," Justice David H. Souter wrote for the majority.

"When the government acts with the ostensible and predominant purpose of advancing religion, it violates that central Establishment clause value of official religious neutrality," he said.

Souter was joined in his opinion by other members of the liberal bloc _ Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, as well as Reagan appointee Sandra Day O'Connor, who provided the swing vote.

The court has really swung to the right if this issue could be decided so narrowly. This such a clear violation of the non-establishment clause that it should be a no-brainer.

Who's the Fairest of Them All?

VA Gets the Picture -- No Shortfall Here

By Al Kamen

Monday, June 27, 2005; Page A13

Turns out that $1 billion shortfall for health care funding for our nation's veterans -- disclosed last week at a House Veterans Affairs Committee hearing -- is only one of many important and vexing dilemmas facing top officials at the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Take, for example, this discussion of a major problem during the weekly conference call a few weeks ago among senior officials at the Veterans Health Administration, which is the medical part of the VA.

"As you know," Deputy Undersecretary Laura Miller said on the May 27 call, "many of our facilities, medical centers, CBOCs" -- that's community-based outpatient clinics; there are about 850 of them in the country, many in rural areas and some open only one to two days a month -- "and [other] offices have a picture of Secretary [ Jim ] Nicholson prominently displayed.

"Unfortunately, however," Miller continued, "there are many facilities that currently do not have the picture displayed. I am aware that the mailings of the pictures occurred on April 22, 2005." So that's more than five full weeks.

"Dr. Perlin" -- that's Jonathan B. Perlin , undersecretary for health, who revealed the $1 billion shortfall after being grilled by committee Chairman Steve Buyer (R-Ind.) -- "and I cannot stress the importance of this enough," she said. "We are asking that you give this your highest priority. We will continue to ask for daily updates on the status until we are assured that all of our facilities have a current picture displayed."

In defense of local VA officials, it turns out that Miller was wrong: Not all the photos went out on April 22. And we hear some officials disagreed that the photos should be their "highest priority."

"And here we're trying to figure out where our next patient meal is coming from and what furniture to sell to buy drugs next year," one VA official said.

Agency officials said Friday that 100 percent of the VHA facilities have reported appropriate placement of the Nicholson photos. Well, it is important to be able to recognize the head of the agency, especially after last week's hearing. Nicholson was the author of an April 5 letter to senators saying, "I can assure you that VA does not need [additional funds] to continue to provide timely, quality service. . . . "

If by some chance any CBOCs or hospitals lost or did not get the pictures, we provide one here that you can cut out and use just in case a headquarters inspector shows up to check on compliance with this important initiative. Or you can pull one down from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/politics/fedpage/

In all honesty, this kind of egomaniacal bullshit isn't restricted to any one administration. This is simply Washington.

Unfooled

Poll: Optimism on Iraq Is Premature
Most Americans Dispute White House Assessment of Weakened Insurgency, Post-ABC Survey Finds

By Richard Morin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, June 27, 2005; 8:42 AM

A majority of Americans reject claims by the Bush administration that the insurgency in Iraq is weakening and are divided on whether victory over the insurgents will have a major impact on terrorism elsewhere in the world, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Barely one in five Americans -- 22 percent -- say they believe that the insurgency is getting weaker while 24 percent believe it is strengthening. More than half -- 53 percent -- say resistance to U.S. and Iraqi government forces has not changed.

The Post-ABC poll also found that few Americans agree with Vice President Cheney that the insurgency is in its "last throes." That claim, which Cheney made recently in an interview with Larry King on CNN, has been repeatedly challenged by critics of the administration's Iraq policy and defended by Bush officials.

One in four Americans -- 25 percent -- say they believe that the bloody campaign against U.S. forces and the fledgling Iraqi government is on "its last legs." Even among those who think the resistance is weakening, only half believe that the insurgency is in its final stages.

As with virtually every facet of the Iraq issue, deep partisan divisions were reflected in views of the current state of the insurgency. More than a third of all Republicans -- 35 percent -- said the insurgents were growing weaker in Iraq, compared to 13 percent of all Democrats and 19 percent of all political independents.

The public was sharply divided over another widely publicized claim about Iraq made by a top administration official. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, speaking last week in Brussels, asserted in a address to the 80-nation conference on the reconstruction of postwar Iraq that a victory over anti-government and U.S. forces will be "a death knell for terrorism as we know it" elsewhere. But fewer than half -- 46 percent -- of those interviewed agreed that defeating the insurgents in Iraq would do much to defeat terrorism elsewhere while 53 percent said it would have, at best, only some positive impact on the broader anti-terrorism campaign.

All that Rumsfeldian bluster on the Sabbath Gasbags hasn't bought Bushco very much.

Pragmatic Politics

The Chinese Challenge

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: June 27, 2005

Until now, the Chinese have mainly invested in U.S. government bonds. But bonds yield neither a high rate of return nor control over how the money is spent. The only reason for China to acquire lots of U.S. bonds is for protection against currency speculators - and at this point China's reserves of dollars are so large that a speculative attack on the dollar looks far more likely than a speculative attack on the yuan.

So it was predictable that, sooner or later, the Chinese would stop buying so many dollar bonds. Either they would stop buying American I.O.U.'s altogether, causing a plunge in the dollar, or they would stop being satisfied with the role of passive financiers, and demand the power that comes with ownership. And we should be relieved that at least for now the Chinese aren't dumping their dollars; they're using them to buy American companies.

Yet there are two reasons that Chinese investment in America seems different from Japanese investment 15 years ago.

One difference is that, judging from early indications, the Chinese won't squander their money as badly as the Japanese did.

The Japanese, back in the day, tended to go for prestige investments - Rockefeller Center, movie studios - that transferred lots of money to the American sellers, but never generated much return for the buyers. The result was, in effect, a subsidy to the United States.

The Chinese seem shrewder than that. Although Maytag is a piece of American business history, it isn't a prestige buy for Haier, the Chinese appliance manufacturer. Instead, it's a reasonable way to acquire a brand name and a distribution network to serve Haier's growing manufacturing capability.

That doesn't mean that America will lose from the deal. Maytag's stockholders will gain, and the company will probably shed fewer American workers under Chinese ownership than it would have otherwise. Still, the deal won't be as one-sided as the deals with the Japanese often were.

The more important difference from Japan's investment is that China, unlike Japan, really does seem to be emerging as America's strategic rival and a competitor for scarce resources - which makes last week's other big Chinese offer more than just a business proposition.

The China National Offshore Oil Corporation, a company that is 70 percent owned by the Chinese government, is seeking to acquire control of Unocal, an energy company with global reach. In particular, Unocal has a history - oddly ignored in much reporting on the Chinese offer - of doing business with problematic regimes in difficult places, including the Burmese junta and the Taliban. One indication of Unocal's reach: Zalmay Khalilzad, who was U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan for 18 months and was just confirmed as ambassador to Iraq, was a Unocal consultant.

Unocal sounds, in other words, like exactly the kind of company the Chinese government might want to control if it envisions a sort of "great game" in which major economic powers scramble for access to far-flung oil and natural gas reserves. (Buying a company is a lot cheaper, in lives and money, than invading an oil-producing country.) So the Unocal story gains extra resonance from the latest surge in oil prices.

If it were up to me, I'd block the Chinese bid for Unocal. But it would be a lot easier to take that position if the United States weren't so dependent on China right now, not just to buy our I.O.U.'s, but to help us deal with North Korea now that our military is bogged down in Iraq.

Can you say "wholly owned subsidiary?" I thought you could.

The Think Tanks

Countdown to the G8 Summit: A Preview of the Challenges and Opportunities
A panel discussion with Brookings experts on issues on the agenda for the upcoming G-8 summit in Scotland. This year, the G-8 nations will focus on Africa and global climate change. Panelists include Brookings Senior Fellows Lael Brainard, Susan Rice, David Sandalow, and Philip Gordon. James Steinberg, vice president and director of Foreign Policy Studies, will moderate. Susan Rice, former assistant secretary of state for African Affairs, will discuss the pace of U.S. aid to Africa.

Thursday, June 30, 10:00 a.m.

I'll be there

The New New Thing

Launch of the Flu Wiki

Just a Bump in the Beltway, The Next Hurrah and Effect Measure blogs announce the launch of a new experiment in collaborative problem solving in public health, The Flu Wiki.

A Wiki is a form of collaborative software that allows anyone to edit (change) any page on the site using a standard web browser like Explorer, Firefox or Safari.The purpose of the Flu Wiki is to help local communities prepare for and perhaps cope with a possible influenza pandemic. This is a task previously ceded to local, state and national governmental public health agencies. Communications technology has now become sufficiently available to allow a new form of collaborative problem solving that harvests the rich fund of knowledge and experience that exists among those connected via the internet, allowing more talent to participate.

What the Flu Wiki is not:

* a news filter
* a discussion board
* a place to promote commercial products
* a soap box
* a place to advance pet theories

There is nothing wrong with these things. Many of us have blogs that do some or all of them. The wiki is not a replacement or competition for any existing blog or site. We hope existing sites will continue to grow, flourish and generally continue to carry out the important functions they have already done so well.

What we hope the wiki will be:

* a reliable source of information, as neutral as possible, about important facts useful for a public health approach to pandemic influenza
* a venue for anticipating the vast range of problems that may arise if a pandemic does occur
* a venue for thinking about implementable solutions to foreseeable problems

No one, in any health department or government agency, knows all the things needed to cope with an influenza pandemic. But it is likely someone knows something about some aspect of each of them and if we can pool and share our knowledge we can advance preparation for and the ability to cope with events. This is not meant to be a substitute for planning, preparation and implementation by civil authorities, but a parallel effort that complements, supports and extends those efforts.

The open nature of the wiki format has shown itself able to develop surprisingly effective and sophisticated products, as in the Wikipedia. Whether it will work to fashion new solutions to a complex public health problem remains to be seen. This is in the nature of a grand experiment. We hope you will join us in it.

The initial offerings are small and illustrative, in keeping with the limited resources of those of us who are turning the keys in the ignition for the first time. While we will continue to administer and maintain the Wiki, we are turning the wheel over to the community, to take it where the road leads us. There is a bit of a learning curve to driving this rig. We hope you will find the instructions sufficient to get started. You'll soon be learning on your own. There is a "sandbox" page you can use to play with if you wish.

Here's the URL: http://www.fluwikie.com/. Regularly updated content will be forthcoming in the days and weeks to come, both by us and by you. That's what wikis are for.

See you there.

Melanie Mattson (Just a Bump in the Beltway), DemFromCT (The Next Hurrah), Revere (Effect Measure).

Keep a Copy in Your Pocket

Rights Groups Fault White House for Jailing of Terror Suspects
By ERIC LICHTBLAU

WASHINGTON, June 26 - Two leading civil rights groups charge in a new study that the Bush administration has twisted the American system of due process "beyond recognition" in jailing at least 70 terror suspects as "material witnesses" since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and the groups are calling on Congress to impose tougher safeguards.

The report, which is to be released on Monday by Human Rights Watch and the American Civil Liberties Union, found that the 70 suspects, a quarter of them American citizens and all but one Muslim men, were jailed often for weeks or months at a time in American facilities without being charged with a crime. Ultimately, only seven men were charged with supporting terrorism, with four convicted so far, the report said.

The report charges that many of the men who were held as material witnesses were "thrust into a Kafkaesque world of indefinite detention without charges, secret evidence, and baseless accusations."

With Congress now locked in a fierce dispute over the government's counterterrorism powers under the Patriot Act, the new report reflects an effort by civil rights groups to expand the debate to a range of other legal tools that the Bush administration is using in its campaign against terrorism. Aides to Senator Patrick J. Leahy, ranking Democrat on the judiciary committee, said he would introduce legislation aimed at limiting the government's ability to detain a material witness indefinitely.

The material witness law, enacted by Congress in 1984, allows federal authorities to hold a person indefinitely if they suspect he has information about a crime and may be unwilling to cooperate or poses a risk of fleeing.

The law has been used for many years to compel the testimony of thousands of illegal immigrants whom authorities feared would flee the country rather than cooperate in investigations into border smuggling and other crimes. But since the Sept. 11 attacks, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has significantly expanded its use in terrorism investigations, and Bush administration officials acknowledge that they see the law as a valuable tool in detaining American citizens and others whom they view not merely as witnesses, but terror suspects.

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, in a speech last year in Washington while he was still serving as White House counsel, said that when the authorities took into custody an American citizen who was a suspected terrorist, they would consider a range of options, "including the potential for a criminal prosecution, detention as a material witness, and detention as an enemy combatant."

Justice Department officials defended their expanded view of the law in interviews and recent congressional testimony, saying that they have sought to use it sparingly and to follow all legal safeguards allowing those material witnesses who are jailed to contact lawyers and to challenge their detention.

Say goodby to the Bill of Rights.

The Coming Plague

Bird flu experts alarmed
Virus has not subsided, raising pandemic fears.

By Marian Uhlman
Inquirer Staff Writer

The unusual behavior of the avian flu has gotten stranger: The virus, which caused no confirmed cases last summer in Vietnam, is continuing to infect people this year.

Its persistence is boosting anxiety levels among world health officials who say the virus eventually could mutate and fuel a devastating pandemic.

"Everything suggests, that the situation we are in now, there is a greater risk for a pandemic than for many decades," said Dr. Peter Horby, a medical officer and epidemiologist for the World Health Organization in Hanoi. "The situation is much more complex than a year ago."

In a telephone interview, Horby said he's more concerned because the virus continues to infect people in Vietnam and is widespread in Asian bird populations, even showing up unexpectedly in domesticated ducks.

"This year, there doesn't appear to be a stop," said Klaus Stöhr, head of WHO's global influenza program in Geneva. "Every human case is worrisome because there is another chance for the virus to [mutate] and a higher chance for a pandemic to occur."

WHO confirmed four human cases this month in Vietnam, and news reports suggest two more cases have been identified this past week. By comparison, the country had no reported cases between April and late summer last year, Stöhr said.

As of mid-June, 107 human cases - including 54 deaths - have been confirmed in Vietnam, Thailand and Cambodia in the last 18 months. The majority occurred in Vietnam.

When the avian flu first started infecting people in late 2003 in Vietnam, Horby said, it was expected to be around weeks or maybe months before subsiding. But now, he said, "we are almost in a chronic outbreak situation."

No one knows whether the avian virus - also called H5N1 - will trigger a pandemic, but it's got many health experts on edge. If the virus figures out how to efficiently infect people, it could sicken and kill millions because humans lack immunity against the disease. Commerce would likely come to a halt, and food and medicines could be in short supply.

The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have collected new viral samples in Vietnam from humans to evaluate whether it is getting more dangerous, according to Dave Daigle, an agency spokesman. He said the CDC plans to publish its findings soon.

Stöhr said it was unclear why human cases have not receded this summer. It could be better surveillance or more instances of bird-to-human transmission. Or perhaps the virus has become more adept at infecting people.

"We have to plan our actions more urgently now that the virus is with us," Horby said. "There is no respite."

This is just a reminder that the Reveres, DemFromCT and I will be launching the new Flu Wiki first thing tomorrow morning. We've been writing the first articles and working with pogge to get the place spruced up and ready for you. Pogge did all the technical work and wrote the instructions (which are so clear that even I understand them,) so drop him a note if you like the result.

I'll have the formal announcement and URL for you first thing in the morning.

No Way Out

Use G8 to save America from itself

IAIN MACWHIRTER argues that G8 leaders gathering at Gleneagles should put aside personal enmity and take the opportunity to devise an exit strategy from Iraq with a UN-sanctioned timetable

So what exactly are we there for? Why are 80 Americans giving up their lives every month? Another six US soldiers died on Friday, bringing the total to 1731 American casualties since the war began in March 2003, along with 20,000 seriously injured. Some 88 British soldiers have died. Tens of thousands of Iraqis have died as well, of course, but nobody bothers to count them.

Yet, the military situation is getting worse, not better, as the US commander in the Gulf, John Abizaid, told Congress last week. There are more militants fighting in Iraq than there were six months ago. US military planners fear it could be six years before American troops come home. That could mean another 4000 to 5000 dead. Another two September 11s.

The stoicism of the US people in the face of this carnage is extraordinary and strangely noble. American mothers genuinely believe that they are making this supreme sacrifice in order to defend their country from the scourge of international terrorism. This is a society which is highly averse to casualties, and George W Bush told them to expect none at all.

But America has is finally realising that it has been cruelly misled; drafted into this war under false pretences. A majority of the Americans now tell opinion pollsters that the war wasn’t worth it. Nobody seriously believes that the invasion has lessened the risk of international terror. The CIA warned last week that a new breed of super-militant jihadists is being schooled in Iraq, much tougher and more ruthless even than the mujahideen who emerged from the Afghanistan in 1980s. Well, they were warned.

Pretty soon, American mothers are going to demand a halt. An exit strategy. But the defence planners never had one. They believed their own propaganda. They thought that with smart weapons, stealth bombers and computerised logistics, this war could be fought from the air. Shock and awe would show that resistance to American might was futile. Bush thought his boys would be coming home almost as soon as they arrived.

This has been shown to be the US’s biggest military miscalculation since Vietnam. It isn’t quite the same scale of disaster as the war in Indochina, but it is going the same way. Donald Rumsfeld conceded last week that there could be no timetable for troop withdrawal. His exit strategy is “one more heave”.

Rummy was on all of the Sabbath Gasbags this morning. Bushco's rhetorical strategy for justifying the war this week is to make the same assertions over and over again at higher volume. Rather reminds me of the Americans I see abroad who do the same thing with natives who don't speak English.

I'll be curious to see whether or not the rest of the G8 do try to bail Bush out at Gleneagles next month. Given that most have reduced their defense budgets to next to nothing, letting us handle the job, there should be some motivation on their part to get us out of the quagmire we are in. Whether C+ Augustus understands he is in trouble and needs help is another matter altogether.

Sunday Brunch

I promised you some veggie recipes this weekend. This is from a friend of mine who made it for a brunch I attended this week. I will happily make it for the next brunch I host.

EDINBURG Inn Breakfast Delight

Edinburg Inn Bed and Breakfast, Ltd, 218 South Main Street
Edinburg, Virginia, 22824 540-984-8286

Judy and Clyde Beachy, Innkeepers, say this dish is so popular that it's often requested by returning guests or those staying more than one night.


2 4oz. cans chopped green chilies
1 lb. shredded Monterey Jack cheese
1 lb. shredded Cheddar cheese
4 egg whites
4 egg yolks
1/2 tsp. salt
2/3 cup canned evaporated milk (5 oz. can)
1 Tbsp. flour
1/8 tsp. pepper
2 large tomatoes, sliced


Mix cheeses, chilies in large bowl.
Spread into lightly greased 9"+ 12" baking dish.
Beat egg whites until stiff peaks form.
Blend egg yolks and remaining ingredients (except tomatoes) and fold into egg whites gently. Pour mixture over cheese and "cut" with knife to slightly mix.
Bake for 30 min. in 325' oven.
Arrange tomato slices on top and bake 30 min. longer.


Yield: 8 - 10 servings

Delicious with a fruit salad and mimosas.

Walk in the Woods

This inquiring mind would like to know how the Sunday (London)Times has been able to develop such an interesting range of sources in the last couple of months. I note an interesting conversation with Brooke Gladstone on NPR's "On the Media" yesterday, regarding Rupert Murdoch's new friendship with the Clintons and the way that his personal relationships color his newspapers. I'll put up a link when NPR posts it.

UPDATE: Here is the audio link.

US 'in talks with Iraq with Iraq rebels'
Hala Jaber
Insurgents reveal secret face-to-face meetings

AT a summer villa near Balad in the hills 40 miles north of Baghdad, a group of Iraqis and their American visitors recently sat down to tea. It looked like a pleasant social encounter far removed from the stresses of war, but the heavy US military presence around the isolated property signalled that an unusual meeting was taking place.

After weeks of delicate negotiation involving a former Iraqi minister and senior tribal leaders, a small group of insurgent commanders apparently came face to face with four American officials seeking to establish a dialogue with the men they regard as their enemies.

The talks on June 3 were followed by a second encounter 10 days later, according to an Iraqi who said that he had attended both meetings. Details provided to The Sunday Times by two Iraqi sources whose groups were involved indicate that further talks are planned in the hope of negotiating an eventual breakthrough that might reduce the violence in Iraq.

Despite months of American military assaults on supposed insurgent bases, General John Abizaid, the regional US commander, admitted to Congress last week that opposition strength was “about the same” as six months ago and that “there’s a lot of work to be done against the insurgency”.

That work now includes secret negotiations with rebel leaders, according to the Iraqi sources.

Washington seems to be gingerly probing for ways of defusing home-grown Iraqi opposition and of isolating the foreign Islamic militants who have flooded into Iraq to wage holy war against America under the command of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq.

The talks appear to represent the first serious effort by Americans and Iraqi insurgents to find common ground since violence intensified in the spring. Earlier informal contacts were reported but produced no perceptible progress.

Zarqawi’s group, which has been blamed for many suicide bombings and beheadings, has not taken part.

According to both Iraqi sources, preparations for this month’s meetings were supervised by Ayham al-Samurai, a Sunni Muslim and former exile who lived in America for 20 years. He returned to Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein to become electricity minister in the interim government.

One of his main challenges was to persuade both sides that they could meet without being ambushed. Both eventually provided pledges that no hostile acts would be attempted.

The American contingent is said to have arrived in a convoy of four armoured Humvee vehicles and at least two armoured personnel carriers. The military escort remained outside the compound while the four US negotiators were greeted by tribal sheikhs who had agreed to host the meeting.

The Pentagon had no immediate comment to make on the Iraqi claims despite repeated requests for confirmation.

The Iraqi sources, who have proved reliable in the past, said the American team included senior military and intelligence officers, a civilian staffer from Congress and a representative of the US embassy in Baghdad.

If any of this is true (a big if) it may represent the only way the US can get out of Iraq without looking like a beaten puppy leaving an utter disaster in its wake.

Extraordinary Rendition

In Italy, Anger at U.S. Tactics Colors Spy Case

By STEPHEN GREY
and DON VAN NATTA Jr.
Published: June 26, 2005

MILAN, June 25 - The extraordinary decision by an Italian judge to order the arrest of 13 people linked to the Central Intelligence Agency on charges of kidnapping a terrorism suspect here dramatizes a growing rift between American counterterrorism officials and their counterparts in Europe.

European counterterrorism officials have pursued a policy of building criminal cases against terrorism suspects through surveillance, wire-taps, detective work and the criminal justice system. The United States, however, has frequently used other means since Sept. 11, 2001, including renditions - abducting terror suspects from foreign countries and transporting them for questioning to third countries, some of which are known to use torture.

Those two approaches seem to have collided in the case of an Egyptian cleric, Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr, or Abu Omar, who led a militant mosque in Milan.

By early 2003, the Italian secret police were aggressively pursuing a criminal terrorism case against Mr. Nasr, with the help of American intelligence officials. Italian investigators said they had told the Americans they had strong evidence that he was trying to build a terror recruitment network, possibly aimed for Iraq if the United States went forward with plans to topple Saddam Hussein.

On Feb. 17, 2003, Mr. Nasr disappeared.

When the Italians began investigating, they said, they were startled to find evidence that some of the C.I.A. officers who had been helping them investigate Mr. Nasr were involved in his abduction.

"We do feel quite betrayed that this operation was carried out in our city," a senior Italian investigator said. "We supplied them information about Abu Omar, and then they used that information against us, undermining an entire operation against his terrorist network."

He and other senior Italian officials in Milan's police and prosecutor's office were angry enough to answer detailed questions about the case, but insisted on anonymity because the investigation is continuing.

"This whole investigation has been very difficult because we've been using the same methods we used against organized crime to trace the activities of people we considered to be our friends and colleagues," the senior Italian investigator said. "It has been quite a troubling affair."

The Italian warrants - requested by Milanese prosecutors after two years of investigations - accuse 13 people identified as American C.I.A. officers and operatives of illegally abducting Mr. Nasr from a Milan street and flying him to Egypt for questioning. The whereabouts of the 13 are unknown, but the charges are criminal. If convicted, they face a maximum penalty of 10 years and 8 months in prison.

Wait a minute...We're acting like assholes and the rest of the planet is having a problem with that?

Spliced Corn

GMO foods can bring benefits, vigilance needed-WHO

Thu Jun 23, 2005 10:54 AM BST

GENEVA (Reuters) - Genetically-modified foods can bring benefits both to farmers and consumers, but safety checks are needed before they are sold, the World Health Organization said on Thursday.

In a report, the United Nations agency said that genetically-modified organisms (GMO) can increase crop yields and food quality, thereby improving health and levels of nutrition as well as profits.

But since some of the genes used in GMO crops have not been in the food chain before, the potential effects on health must always be assessed before they are grown and marketed.

Those foods currently available on the international market had undergone such tests and there was no evidence they could cause problems, the WHO said in its 58-page report.

The subject is sensitive in Europe where consumers have reacted against what are sometimes viewed as "Frankenstein" foods, and the European Union is locked in a trade row with the United States over Brussels' reluctance to authorize imports.

Some 800 million people in developing countries were undernourished, despite a 50 percent decline in world food prices over the past two decades, and the global population was expected to grow by another 2 billion to 8 billion in 2025, the WHo said. GMOs could play an important role in helping to meet these future food needs, it added.

"Producing nutritionally enhanced properties in staple crops eaten by the poor could reduce the burden of disease in many developing countries," the WHO said in the report.

I'm honestly torn about the issue of genetically modified foods. One the one hand, I really don't want to deny the incredible improvements that science can make towards ending hunger in the world. Granted, new foods won't deal with distribution problems and poverty, but they can ease many dire situations through out the world.

However, at least here in America, there has been very little discussion about the impact of genes within the food system. Now, I'm not as paranoid as many people in Europe are, but I also suspect I'm not as well informed. The government (Food and Drug and Agriculture) needs to be sure that there isn't a significant risk to humans sa we alter our crops. More importantly, they need to be sure and inform the public right away if there is a problem. Otherwise, someone might mistaken that as a conflict of interest.

Wait a minute... a conflict of interest in this administration.... never....

2 Years Ago

Be careful everyone, this is a happy and positive entry....

ok, are you still with me? Good.

Two years ago, I remember exactly where I was at 2:30 in the afternoon that Wednesday. I was at the Sheraton in Greenville, North Carolina participating in a workshop. It was a chance for me to earn some extra money because we were going to need it in the fall once my wife had our twins. They were due in October, but we expected them to appear early, probably around her birthday at the start of September. We had even attend our first Lamaze class the night before and I had driven back down from Raleigh to Greenville that morning (about an hour and a half if you stick close to the speed limit). At that time, I received a message from the hotel to call my mother at once at a number I didn’t recognize.

I called the number and got her in the hospital. It turned out that my wife had felt some contractions, luckily reached my father who took her to the doctor, and was now at the hospital where they were going to perform a C-Section on her to save the twins, even though they were one day shy of 25 weeks. My mother, a lady who does not panic, told me to hurry to the hospital because she didn’t know what was going to happen next. That alone was enough to tell me that something was seriously wrong.

When I arrived at the hospital, I made it up to the room my wife was in and was told by the doctor, “I’m glad you’re here, we were just getting ready to leave.” At 4:29 PM and 4:30 PM, the children arrived visa via C-Section. Baby Girl A was screaming at the top of her little lungs as loud as she could... Baby Boy B hardly made a sound. The children were whisked away to isolets and we were left to ponder what had happened. A doctor there who specialized in preemies told me quite bluntly, “I think your daughter has between a 2/3 and 3/4 chance of survival since she was breathing. Your son only has a 1/2 to 2/3 chance.” The scariest thing about that moment is what I thought when I heard those odds, namely they were better than I could hope for. Each child weighed just over 1 and 1/2 pounds (660 and 646 grams respectively).

This started our long odyssey with the NICU (Neonatal Intensive Care Unit) at WakeMed hospital. This NICU is nationally ranked as one of the best in the US and I can tell you that they deserve every bit of it. The people who worked there were nothing short of amazing, both in how they dealt with the children and how they dealt with the family. In fact, I suspect the family might be the hardest to deal with because you are in such a continual state of shock that it’s hard to know exactly how to react, especially when all of this medical terminology is thrown at you at once and there is no prep time for it. There are also a ton of emotional roller coasters involved that even if you logically understand they are there, that doesn’t mean you can handle them emotionally. The idea that for the first couple of weeks, we would be excited over the weight gain of 15 grams is enough to cause a shudder down my spine. Thankfully, my wife and I were blissfully optimistic about the chances the kids had. Otherwise, I don’t know how we would have made it from week to week and even then, some days I don’t know how we did it aside from the fact that we didn’t have a choice.

We were really blessed with the fact that we had family close by in the form of my parents and brother. They spent countless hours in the NICU with the children and helping us get everything ready ar our house. My wife’s parents flew in form Oklahoma early on, but weren’t able to both return until Christmas (her mother flew in a couple of times in between and is blessed with a very understanding boss). We also were blessed with an extremely supportive church family that went out of their way to help us any way they could. My mother regularly sent out daily e-mail updates to close friends and relatives about how the children were doing. Soon they started to send them to their friends and religious groups. Eventually, we all lost track of how many people were following the progress of the twins.

The doctor wasn’t exaggerating on the odds for these kids. If they had come much earlier, one or both of them would not have survived for more than a day or so (most preemies’ organs aren’t developed enough to survive much before 23 weeks). Even so, they were at risk for many delays and problems since they were so early (one fellow teacher told me during a workshop a month later that she was sorry that both of the kids would be “guaranteed to have ADD and developmental delays” even though she had never seen them). Baby Boy B especially had the odds against him since, as a white male, he faced the longest odds to recovery. In fact, he had to undergo a major heart surgery at one month called a pda ligation . He later had to have surgery done on his eyes and one on a hernia he developed. Thankfully, Baby Girl A didn’t need any surgeries even though she did have a small hole in her heart.

It helped that the babies decided that even though they were early, they wanted to stick around for a while. For example, Baby Girl A removed her breathing tube herself after one week and actually stayed off of it for a while before it had to be put back in. That, and other actions, earned her the nickname “Spitfire” which she still lives up to today. Baby Boy B had a much harder time especially since he had to be placed back on the ventilator after his hernia surgery which really through him for a loop. Still, all of the nurses in the NICU told us that he was a “flirt” and would follow all of the conversations around him. He picked up the nickname “Tigger”, and his energy level hasn’t diminished one bit. We were able to hold Spitfire a couple of weeks after her birth but weren’t able to hold Tigger for much longer. It was so hard to visit and only be able to place our hands inside of the isolets instead of being able to hold our child.

Spitfire came home one week before her due date, 100 days after being born. She came home without any assistance at the heavy weight of 4 pounds. Tigger, who had suffered that relapse with the hernia surgery, came home 15 days later on an oxygen tank and a monitor that bleeped and blorked at a moments notice (which was turned off quickly for Mom and Dad’s sanity if for no one else’s). He weighed around 4 pounds and started to lose weight as he did not want to take a bottle. We were very worried early on that he would have a feeding tube placed in him but thankfully that didn’t take place.

And here we are, two years later with twins that, if you didn’t know better, don’t appear to have any cares in the world. Tigger does show some signs of his rocky beginning... he has a paralyzed vocal chord from the pda ligation (not surprising since the blood vessel they were aiming for was behind his grape sized heart when they did the surgery) so when he speaks, it’s in a whisper and his speaking language is delayed. He is also a couple of pounds lighter than his sister, but he’s also more active than she is. She still has that hole in her heart, but it may be closing on its own and the doctors aren’t worried. Both of them are developing perfectly fine mentally and physically. They both love music and to bang on things. They did an entire year of daycare and will start at a Montessori program half day next year.

These kids are a living example of the power of prayer and love. Many of the nurses in the NICU commented that the kids who recovered the fastest were those that had parents who visited every day and interacted with them. We know that the mailing list got forwarded to many church congregations who placed them on their prayer lists and Lord knows, those kids needed every one of those prayers that they received.

We received a lot of services over the last two years (Social Security and county services which the kids are still on) which have had varying degrees of effectiveness, but we have been unbelievably lucky to this point. Many families of preemies aren’t as fortunate as we’ve been. Yet, many state governments like Louisiana are busy cutting services to families with preemies as a way to balance their budgets. Don’t they understand that this early therapy is an investment in these children, not to mention their stressed out and panicked parents? What kind of “Christian” can look at a family with a 5 pound child on oxygen and a feeding tube and tell them that the nurse that is needed every day to monitor the machines can’t come any more because some rich guy needs a new tax shelter? Or better yet, it’s the parents’ fault that the child was early, so they should bear the burden for the child’s welfare (just try that with my wife... you won’t find a jury that will convict her for what happens next).

Honestly, it will cost the government less in the long run to help a child and its family now then to have to spend the money on them later but the child development experts already know this, we just need to remind our politicians about it again and again.

Just to close a very long entry, my daughter gave me a birthday gift today. She’s just learned how to say “I love you.” even if comes out as “I Vovyu.” and she came up to me and gave me a big hug and told me that to my face and her brother joined her, honking at me and signing “thank you”. Wow!

Hopefully, the package of Nilla Wafers behind me had nothing to do with my sudden popularity :).

Accountability

Safer Vehicles for Soldiers: A Tale of Delays and Glitches

By MICHAEL MOSS
Published: June 26, 2005

When Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld visited Iraq last year to tour the Abu Ghraib prison camp, military officials did not rely on a government-issued Humvee to transport him safely on the ground. Instead, they turned to Halliburton, the oil services contractor, which lent the Pentagon a rolling fortress of steel called the Rhino Runner. Skip to next paragraph

State Department officials traveling in Iraq use armored vehicles that are built with V-shaped hulls to better deflect bullets and bombs. Members of Congress favor another model, called the M1117, which can endure 12-pound explosives and .50-caliber armor-piercing rounds.

Unlike the Humvee, the Pentagon's vehicle of choice for American troops, the others were designed specifically to withstand bigger attacks in battlefields like Iraq with no safe zones. Last fall, for instance, a Rhino traveling the treacherous airport road in Baghdad endured a bomb that left a six-foot-wide crater. The passengers walked away unscathed. "I have no doubt should I have been in any other vehicle," wrote an Army captain, the lone military passenger, "the results would have been catastrophically different."

Yet more than two years into the war, efforts by United States military units to obtain large numbers of these stronger vehicles for soldiers have faltered - even as the Pentagon's program to armor Humvees continues to be plagued by delays, an examination by The New York Times has found.

Generals Who Admit ‘Lack of Leadership’ Should Be Fired

By Eilhys England Hackworth
and Roger Charles

News reports earlier this week carried one of the most shameful performances by a Marine general officer before a congressional committee since 1983, when then-Commandant P.X. Kelley tried to avoid any moral responsibility for not preventing the Marine barracks bombing in Beirut that killed 241 American warriors, including 220 Marines.

Kelley tried to tap-dance away from accountability by actually claiming he "was not in the chain of command." While true on a strictly operational basis, his disavowal did not play well on Capitol Hill and was widely believed to have cost him his chance to serve as the first Marine Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Now we have the Nyland–Catto duck-and-weave show, where Gen. William "Spider" Nyland, the assistant commandant of the Marine Corps, and his one-star lackey, Brig. Gen. William Catto, the chief of Marine Corps Systems Command, confessed with straight faces to the House Armed Services Committee on Tuesday that the lack of armored Humvees was due to "lack of leadership" – although they assured the committee that their same lousy leadership would somehow make sure the Humvees and military trucks that the Marines used in Iraq "would be adequately protected by December."

Their testimony dovetailed with the release of a damning Marine Corps Inspector General report this week – obtained from sources by SFTT – that reveals the overall deterioration of Marine ground equipment due to the high optempo in Iraq.

For a Marine general to admit such a crummy leadership failure costing the lives of Marines in combat and somehow keep his command is probably the most twisted Beltway stunt since Pentagon hypesters sucked The Washington Post into publishing their public relations spin on Pfc. Jessica Lynch fighting "to the last bullet."

If Nyland and Catto truly accepted personal responsibility for a failure of leadership which led to the deaths of their Marines, they had one, and only one, honorable course of action – to walk the plank and resign their commissions. A painful trip that would have meant kissing their generous pensions and juicy revolving-door perqs goodbye.

The silence from Marine Commandant Mike Hagee's office on this matter merely underlines that Nyland and Catto were playing the "take responsibility" ploy with his approval – and a gullible news media once again bought into a Pentagon con that let the perps prevail.

Hagee – who should have been taking responsibility and sitting at the table alongside Nyland and Catto – was instead running around presenting coins to the grieving parents of a Marine being buried at Arlington National Cemetery and a Marine being readied for surgery at Bethesda National Naval Medical Center. Certainly, he had the power to have given these folks something even more meaningful along with the coins – new and competent commanders with the right stuff to prevent other needless casualties.
....
As with Hagee, Rumsfeld also should be fired for his conspicuous-by-his-silence endorsement of sorry leaders whose incompetence continues to get our fighters killed, crippled and blinded.

But don't hold your breath. Rumsfeld, Hagee, Nyland and Catto will slug on. And vehicles without adequate and available armor will continue to be torn up by IEDs. And crocodile tears will continue to be shed by Perfumed Princes during photo opportunities at Arlington, Bethesda and Walter Reed.

And more American kids will pay in blood for the uncaring incompetence of Rumsfeld & Co.

Facts v. Happy Talk

Terror Strategist Warns of Lengthy Iraqi Insurgency
By Monisha Bansal
CNSNews.com Correspondent
June 24, 2005

CNSNews.com) - With Democrats and even a few Republicans escalating their criticism of the Bush administration's handling of the war in Iraq, and with polls indicating shrinking public support, a top terrorism strategist Friday said the president should "stop talking down" to Congress and the American people.

Anthony Cordesman, a strategist with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, blamed the Bush administration for "major strategic mistakes in preparing to deal with Iraq once Saddam Hussein was overthrown.

Cordesman, who traveled to Iraq earlier this month, said he "did not see progress in aid. I did not see progress in economics. I did not see that the U.S. has a plan for using the aid they are providing."

On Tuesday night, President Bush will deliver a nationally televised speech on the situation in Iraq, at a time when at least one poll indicates nearly two-thirds of Americans feel it would be wise to bring the American troops home in the next year, rather than waiting for Iraq to stabilize.

The latest Harris Interactive survey showed that 63 percent of Americans want the troops brought home in the next year, up from only 47 percent who felt that way on Election Day last November.

Brookings maintains an Iraq Index which is updated twice a week, tracking the reconstruction and security issues. It very much backs up Cordesman's observations.

CSIS has also been giving regular briefings on Iraq, the most recent by Cordesman himself yesterday. Here is the audio, or you can read the report (.pdf.)

Summer Bounty

The farmers' market yielded some goodies for dinner tonight, the fields of Loudon County, Virginia and southern Pennsylvania are already producing. I have a couple of rules for the summer: eat as much fresh sweet corn and vine ripened tomatoes as possible.

The menu tonight:

Vine ripened heritage tomatoes, sliced and served with fresh mozarella, fresh basil, extra virgin olive oil and a grind of pepper

Baby zucchini squash, halved, cut sides slathered with minced garlic, olive oil and salt and pepper, broiled for five minutes (this is an old Lebanese recipe, the name translates "the pleasure of the chef.")

Add cold, minted iced tea and this is a banquet.

Cold Wind

Just so you can't say I didn't warn you:

Peace churches gear for draft
Members consider conscientious objector programs

By TOM INFIELD

The Philadelphia Inquirer

PHILADELPHIA - For the first time since the Vietnam War, pacifist churches are thinking of how to prepare young men to become conscientious objectors in the event the draft is resumed.

President Bush, leaders of Congress, and the military brass all say forcefully that, no, no, no, there are no plans for military conscription.

But members of what are often called the historic peace churches -- Mennonites, Brethren and Quakers -- believe a draft appears more and more likely as U.S. troops continue to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan and the Army fails to meet its recruitment goals.

"We are probably one terrorist attack -- one 9/11 -- away from a draft," said Dan McFadden, director of Brethren Volunteer Service in Elgin, Ill.

Leaders of the peace churches, which have their roots in Pennsylvania, say that what they may need to do now is prepare in-house programs in which their young men might perform two years of required civilian public service in exchange for not having to go into the military.

The draft ended in 1973. But the Selective Service System, which is charged with maintaining machinery for a draft, is encouraging the peace churches to make contingency plans.

"We do encourage it," said Cassandra Costley, who was appointed last year as director of a new alternative-service division within Selective Service.

"It's not because we expect there is going to be a draft in the next year -- or the next five years," Costley said from her office in Rosslyn, Va. "But our mandate is that we be prepared."

McFadden was among three Brethren and Mennonite leaders from across the United States who held a telephone conference this month to go over options for alternative service.

"There aren't any definite plans at this point; we are just going to keep talking," he said.

Codex Curiosity

Peering Through the Layers Of Ancient Christian Texts
Mount Sinai Monastery Hopes Imaging Technology Will Reveal Faded and Obscured Writings

By Tom Perry
Reuters
Saturday, June 25, 2005; B09

MOUNT SINAI, Egypt The world's oldest monastery plans to use high-tech cameras to shed new light on ancient Christian texts preserved for centuries within its fortress walls in the Sinai Desert.

St. Catherine's Monastery hopes the technology will allow a fuller understanding of some of the world's earliest Christian texts, including pages from the Codex Sinaiticus, the oldest surviving Bible in the world.

The technique, known as hyperspectral imaging, will use a camera to photograph the parchments at different wavelengths of light, highlighting faded texts obscured by time and later writings.

It should allow scholars to understand corrections made to pages of the Greek Codex Sinaiticus, written between A.D. 330 and 350 and thought to be one of 50 copies of the Scriptures commissioned by Roman Emperor Constantine.

"If you look at all the corrections made by each scribe, then you can come out with a principle on which he was correcting the text," monastery librarian Father Justin said.

In a joint project with the monastery, libraries in Britain, Germany and Russia, which together hold the bulk of the manuscript, will also scan pages and fragments of the text to digitally reunite the work in a facsimile.

The monastery had kept the Codex Sinaiticus until the mid-19th century, when the bulk of it was taken to Russia by a German scholar and never returned. Russia sold those pages in 1933 to the British Library, where they are still kept.

The monks thought they had lost the entire manuscript to Europe until 1975, when they discovered 12 of its pages and 15 fragments in a forgotten chamber, buried under a collapsed ceiling with thousands of other parchment leaves and fragments.
....
Father Justin, who is from Texas, has started digitizing some of the monastery's best-preserved manuscripts using a camera that can take photos up to a resolution of 72 megapixels.

"When I came to Sinai, I came to live in the desert. I didn't know I'd be doing computer photography and going to London four times a year," he said.

The monastery aims to have 100 manuscripts photographed and accessible through a Web site by the middle of next year. "Even though it's only 100 out of 3,000, it will be an important scholarly resource," Father Justin said.

Book historians are cataloguing the condition of the manuscripts and the physical features of their bindings, 50 percent of which are original.

"The evidence of where a manuscript has been and where it has come from to get here is often in the binding," Pickwoad said.

Conservators are even keeping the dust they brush from the manuscripts in a search for traces of pollen or seeds that may yield evidence of how texts in languages including Persian, Amharic and Hebrew made it to the middle of the Sinai Desert.

This won't be great news for Biblical literalists, but for the rest of us who use the historical-critical method of reading ancient texts, it is wonderful.

My Old Testament professor speaks 6 modern and 7 ancient languages. A little humility in the face of that is a good thing. I know he will be approaching these new manuscripts with great curiosity and awe.

Messing About

Three Things About Iraq

Published: June 25, 2005

To have the sober conversation about the war in Iraq that America badly needs, it is vital to acknowledge three facts:

The war has nothing to do with Sept. 11. Saddam Hussein was a sworn enemy of Washington, but there was no Iraq-Qaeda axis, no connection between Saddam Hussein and the terrorist attacks on the United States. Yet the president and his supporters continue to duck behind 9/11 whenever they feel pressure about what is happening in Iraq. The most cynical recent example was Karl Rove's absurd and offensive declaration this week that conservatives and liberals had different reactions to 9/11. Let's be clear: Americans of every political stripe were united in their outrage and grief, united in their determination to punish those who plotted the mass murder, and united behind the war in Afghanistan, which was an assault on terrorists. Trying to pretend otherwise is the surest recipe for turning political dialogue into meaningless squabbling.

The war has not made the world, or this nation, safer from terrorism. The breeding grounds for terrorists used to be Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia; now Iraq has become one. Any sensible discussion of what to do next has to begin by acknowledging that. The surest way to make sure that conversation does not happen is for the administration to continue pasting the "soft on terror" label on those who want to talk about the war.

If the war is going according to plan, someone needs to rethink the plan. Progress has been measurable on the political front. But even staunch supporters of the war, like the Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, told Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld at a hearing this week that President Bush was losing public support because the military effort was not keeping pace. A top general said this week that the insurgency is growing. The frequency of attacks is steady, or rising a bit, while the repulsive tactic of suicide bombings has made them more deadly.

"Of all the justifications for invading Iraq that the administration juggled in the beginning, the only one that has held up over time is the desire to create a democratic nation that could help stabilize the Middle East."

That's the most imperialistic horseshft I've ever heard. It equates to "If we impose our standards on them, the whole region will be better." There is no historical justification for such a thought. It cooks out to "we know better than you do."

Israel is the oldest "democracy" in the neighorhood. Has that made for peaceful neighbors? Turkey is a democracy, but that hasn't settled the strife with its Kurds.

This foolish and immoral war is the best argument so far for letting the locals sort it out among themselves. The hubris of the neocons is that they think they know better what's good for you.

The High Stakes Game

U.S. furor grows over Chinese firm's bid to grab Unocal

Politicians claim $18.5-billion CNOOC offer is a threat to U.S. energy security

By GEOFFREY YORK AND SHAWN MCCARTHY
Saturday, June 25, 2005

BEIJING, NEW YORK -- China found itself embroiled in the biggest corporate battle in its history yesterday as its state-owned oil company plunged ahead with a campaign for the hearts and minds of the U.S. politicians who could decide the fate of its bid for Unocal Corp.

The China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) announced on Thursday an $18.5-billion (U.S.) bid for the California-based oil giant, the ninth-biggest oil company in the United States. The bid is sparking a furor in Washington, where politicians are raising the spectre of a Chinese threat to American energy security.

Four members of Congress have asked the U.S. administration to consider the security implications of the Chinese takeover bid. They said it was not a free-market deal, but a blatant Chinese grab for American oil resources.

CNOOC, China's third-largest energy company, moved quickly yesterday to try to assuage American fears of a national security threat.

In a statement issued in Beijing, the company said it was prepared to sell some U.S. assets and place others under American management.

"Substantially all of the oil and gas produced by Unocal in the U.S. will continue to be sold in the U.S.," CNOOC chairman and CEO Fu Chengyu said in the statement yesterday.

"The development of properties in the Gulf of Mexico will provide further supplies of oil and gas for American markets," he added.

CNOCC is bidding against Chevron Corp., which had an agreement to purchase the company for $16.65-billion.

The battle for Unocal is showing China's newfound savvy in takeover bids.

With an official policy that encourages its biggest firms to acquire worldwide assets, Chinese business leaders are rapidly gaining experience in the political and diplomatic nuances of takeover battles.

CNOOC has recruited a high-powered battery of American lobbyists, law firms, investment banks and public-relations specialists to help it win the political struggle in Washington.

Mr. Yu's statement was faxed around Capitol Hill by the company's newly hired lobbyists, the Washington law firm of Akin Gump Strauss Haver & Feld LLP.

CNOOC's financial advisers -- led by Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan -- stand to earn fees of $200-million to $300-million if its bid for Unocal is successful, according to a report yesterday in the Financial Times. It would be the biggest such payment in Asian history.

However, the company must first deal with any government roadblocks that a hostile Congress might erect.

A spokesman for California Republican Richard Pombo, chairman of the House Committee on Resources, said CNOOC's promises are unlikely to influence members of Congress.

"I don't think people are going to be swayed by promises of kindness and friendliness by CNOCC," Mr. Pombo's director of communications, Brian Kennedy, said yesterday.

"The Chinese national government owns 70 per cent of the company which raises the questions whether it [CNOCC] will do the bidding of the free market or the Chinese national government."

A spokesman for the Chinese Foreign Ministry said the United States should keep politics out of consideration and let CNOOC's bid go forward.

"We have observed there is opposition to this bid, but we hope all commercial transactions will remain free of political interference," Liu Jinchao said at a briefing in Beijing yesterday.

Energy analyst Cal Luft said the CNOOC bid is not a pure commercial transaction because it has the backing of the national government and is part of a national strategy to gain access to global energy supplies.

"I don't know how seriously we should take their promises because once they need the oil, they are going to make sure they get it, and that will be to the detriment of the United States," said Mr. Luft, executive director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, a Washington-based think tank.

He said the bid for Unocal is just one example of China's increasing investment in global energy sources -- including Canada's oil sands and Venezuelan oil fields. "The trend should be raising alarms" among lawmakers in Washington, Mr. Luft said.

Energy policy, anyone?

Opportunity Knocks

U.S. will stay the course in Iraq, Bush pledges

By David E. Sanger The New York Times
SATURDAY, JUNE 25, 2005

President Bush on Friday promised the Iraqi prime minister, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, that he was "not giving up on the mission" in Iraq despite rising pressure on the White House to describe a strategy for gradual American withdrawal.

Bush shrugged off suggestions that the military and members of his administration disagree on the strength of the insurgency.

Standing in the East Room beside Jaafari, a longtime dissident-in-exile when Saddam Hussein ruled Iraq, Bush once again promised that he would not set a schedule for drawing down the American presence, in the face of growing calls in Congress and from the public to do so.

"There are not going to be any timetables," Bush said in the news conference. "Why would you say to the enemy, you know, here's a timetable, just go ahead and wait us out?"

Suggesting that would be a sign of weakness, he said that if a schedule were set "you're conceding too much to the enemy."

Jaafari, who spoke primarily in Arabic, broke into English to state his agreement with Bush. "This is not the time to fall back," he said.

He echoed the White House view that good news in Iraq is being drowned out by the steady string of bombings and other attacks, and argued that "I see from up close what's happening in Iraq, and I know we are making steady and substantial progress."

Yet Bush's insistence that he will stay the course sets up a delicate political task for Tuesday night, when the president has asked the major networks to broadcast a prime-time address at Fort Bragg. It will mark the first anniversary of the end of the American occupation and the handover of power to the Iraqis.

With American casualties showing no signs of tapering off, Bush is having an increasingly difficult time convincing even members of his own party that his strategy is working.

The White House is having to contend with televised images each day reinforcing the constant carnage, while military leaders report no letup in attacks or the influx of foreign fighters, and the training of Iraqi forces progresses with painful slowness.

Bush seemed to preview next week's speech when he said the development of political institutions in Iraq gave him optimism about the future. But he was most vociferous on the question of not giving in to the insurgents, and seemed to link their attacks with the polls showing growing American sentiment to find an exit.

"They figure if they can shake our will and affect public opinion, then politicians will give up on the mission," he said. "I'm not giving up on the mission. We're doing the right thing, which is to set the foundation for peace and freedom."

Bush declined to answer directly when asked about apparent disagreements - or at least notable differences in language - between Vice President Dick Cheney and General John Abizaid, commander of U.S. troops in Iraq.

Emphasis mine. Again, we are "staying the course" to disaster. Perhaps Bumpers would like to let the President know their views.

Update: Dave Johnson @ Seeing the Forest has a "Fire Carl Rove" petition here.

Contamination

CNN just announced that the British lab doing the testing confirmed a second case of BSE in the US beef supply (bovine spongiform encephalopathy or "mad cow.")

Here's is the reason that I eat only organic beef:

Loopholes in Ban on Cattle Remains in Feed

The Food and Drug Administration promised in January 2004 to close loopholes in a ban on putting cattle remains in cattle feed, but it has failed to act. The government calls the ban a "firewall" against the spread of mad cow disease. Eating the mad cow disease protein is the only way cows are known to get the disease.

Loopholes include:

-Ground-up cattle remains can be fed to chicken, and chicken litter is fed back to cattle. Poultry feed that spills from cages mixes with chicken waste on the ground, then is swept up for use in cattle feed. Scientists believe the BSE protein will survive the feed-making process and may survive being digested in chickens.

-Cattle blood can be fed to cattle and often comes in the form of milk replacement for calves. Some scientists believe blood from infected cattle could transmit the disease.

-Restaurant leftovers, called "plate waste," are allowed in cattle feed. Cuts of meat that contain part of the spinal cord, or become contaminated by spinal tissue while being prepared, could be infected with BSE.

-Factories are not required to use separate production lines and equipment for feed that contains cattle remains and feed that does not, creating the risk that cattle remains could accidentally go into cattle feed.

-Besides being fed to poultry, cattle protein is allowed in feed for pigs and household pets, creating the possibility it could mistakenly be fed to cattle.

-Unfiltered tallow, or fat, is allowed in cattle feed, yet it has protein impurities that could be a source of mad cow disease.

Hmmm. All of the news today is pretty depressing. I think it might be time to post some vegatarian recipes over the weekend.

How Mengele Started

Interrogators Cite Doctors' Aid at Guantánamo Prison Camp

By NEIL A. LEWIS
Published: June 24, 2005

WASHINGTON, June 23 - Military doctors at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, have aided interrogators in conducting and refining coercive interrogations of detainees, including providing advice on how to increase stress levels and exploit fears, according to new, detailed accounts given by former interrogators.

The accounts, in interviews with The New York Times, come as mental health professionals are debating whether psychiatrists and psychologists at the prison camp have violated professional ethics codes. The Pentagon and mental health professionals have been examining the ethical issues involved.

The former interrogators said the military doctors' role was to advise them and their fellow interrogators on ways of increasing psychological duress on detainees, sometimes by exploiting their fears, in the hopes of making them more cooperative and willing to provide information. In one example, interrogators were told that a detainee's medical files showed he had a severe phobia of the dark and suggested ways in which that could be manipulated to induce him to cooperate.

In addition, the authors of an article published by The New England Journal of Medicine this week said their interviews with doctors who helped devise and supervise the interrogation regimen at Guantánamo showed that the program was explicitly designed to increase fear and distress among detainees as a means to obtaining intelligence.

The accounts shed light on how interrogations were conducted and raise new questions about the boundaries of medical ethics in the nation's fight against terrorism.

Bryan Whitman, a senior Pentagon spokesman, declined to address the specifics in the accounts. But he suggested that the doctors advising interrogators were not covered by ethics strictures because they were not treating patients but rather were acting as behavioral scientists.

He said that while some health care personnel are responsible for "humane treatment of detainees," some medical professionals "may have other roles," like serving as behavioral scientists assessing the character of interrogation subjects.

The military refused to give The Times permission to interview medical personnel at the isolated Guantánamo camp about their practices, and the medical journal, in an article that criticized the program, did not name the officials interviewed by its authors. The handful of former interrogators who spoke to The Times about the practices at Guantánamo spoke on condition of anonymity; some said they had welcomed the doctors' help.

Pentagon officials said in interviews that the practices at Guantánamo violated no ethics guidelines, and they disputed the conclusions of the medical journal's article, which was posted on the journal's Web site on Wednesday.

Several ethics experts outside the military said there were serious questions involving the conduct of the doctors, especially those in units known as Behavioral Science Consultation Teams, BSCT, colloquially referred to as "biscuit" teams, which advise interrogators.

"Their purpose was to help us break them," one former interrogator told The Times earlier this year.

This is not new news, I remember reading about it last year in The Lancet, the British medical journal. But let's get all the infection out on the table. I can't find any way that this behavior is compatible with the Hypocratic Oath, at the very least. There ought to be some sort of professional sanction for this.

Sunshine Patriots

The Other Guy's Sacrifice

By Richard Cohen

Friday, June 24, 2005; Page A31

The late John Gregory Dunne -- novelist, essayist, screenwriter -- was my friend. For a year or two around 1990, though, he wouldn't have anything to do with me. I found this out the hard way by inviting him to dinner. He wouldn't come, he said, and when he asked if I wanted to know why, he told me flat out: I was a hypocrite.

The proof of my hypocrisy was my support of the looming Gulf War. I wanted Iraq out of Kuwait, and I wanted Saddam Hussein dealt with. But when Dunne asked me if I wanted these things badly enough that I would want my own son to fight in the upcoming war, I said no -- I would leave that to others. If this be hypocrisy, then I am a hypocrite.

In the end, Dunne and I resumed our relationship, but I never really knew what to make of his criticism. I thought that he had something of a point. But I also saw limited war the way I see a fire or a bank holdup or some such thing. We call on cops or firefighters to risk their lives to do what we are not willing or able to do ourselves. This is their task, and sometimes it costs them their lives.

As far as I was concerned, my firefighter-police officer analogy held for the Iraq war also -- at least until I concluded that the war itself was a mistake. Until that moment, I had thought that getting rid of Hussein was a dandy idea, especially since he was purportedly armed with hideous weapons of mass destruction. We now know they did not exist -- although they once did -- and neither did his alleged ties to al Qaeda. Still, Hussein is gone. "Was it not worth at least some sacrifice to remove such a man from power?"

The quote is from a June 19 Post op-ed by Robert Kagan, one of the most thoughtful and influential of the pro-war foreign policy intellectuals. I read that sentence with the eyes of my late friend. I know Dunne would have pounced on it, clipped it from the paper and called someone to ask precisely who or what Kagan was willing to "sacrifice." It is not likely to be anyone Kagan knows, since middle-aged Yale graduates are not likely to have friends in the National Guard or children hankering to join the Marines. Even the Vietnam War, with a draft that initially managed to catch mostly the poor, cast a more egalitarian net than this one.
....
Dunne liked to refer to "sunshine patriots" -- those of us who called for others to fight a war we or our children would never fight. This war was conceived by sunshine patriots and directed by them -- and fought for reasons that some in the administration knew were exaggerations or, in some cases (Dick Cheney's nuclear scare-mongering), sheer fabrications. It has become the sorriest of wars, conceived for one reason, fought for another, good enough for others to fight, not good enough for ourselves and, maybe, an awful quagmire in the making. It's time the sunshine patriots looked outside.

It's raining.

This is the mirror of the argument I had with pro-war liberal friends. When I asked them, how much in blood and treasure? they never had an answer.

Congress Notices

Roll Call is subscription only, but I'm reproducing the part that matters. Kondracke "gets it."

Avian Flu Could Become Top ’08 Issue. Seriously.

By Mort Kondracke
Roll Call Executive Editor

June 23, 2005

According to Foreign Affairs, “Since it first appeared in southern China in 1997, the virus has mutated, becoming heartier and deadlier and killing a wider range of species.

“If the relentlessly evolving virus becomes capable of human-to-human transmission, develops a power of contagion typical of human influenzas and maintains its extraordinary virulence, humanity could well face a pandemic unlike any ever witnessed.”

The implication is that the death toll could be in the hundreds of millions, even a billion, given vulnerabilities in the under-developed world. A pandemic could crush the world economy.

And then, the article adds: “Or nothing could happen.”

The combined threat of infectious disease — the avian flu is just one of several menaces — plus bioterrorism presents a quandary for U.S. politicians. Do they urgently prepare for the worst, possibly wasting vast resources, or cross their fingers and hope that nothing happens?

In a remarkable June 1 speech at Harvard University, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) — a physician and presidential candidate — declared infectious diseases and bioterrorism “the single greatest threat to our safety and security today” and said fighting them will be the overriding purpose of his political future.

At the same time, Frist is being criticized for not moving aggressively enough to get new BioShield legislation passed, notably by Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), who’s been driving the issue hard for years.

Frist and Lieberman are backing rival bills that offer tax, liability and other incentives to now-reluctant biotech companies to begin producing vaccines, diagnostics and therapies and to guarantee a market if they produce them.

Lieberman contends that his bill is more comprehensive, and his aides question whether Frist is pushing various Senate committees hard enough to get legislation enacted this year.

“You have a fascinating conflation of presidential politics and serious substance at work here,” said Chuck Ludlam, who’s retiring this week as a top Lieberman aide and former biotechnology lobbyist to join the Peace Corps.

“You have three presidential candidates interested in this issue,” he noted — Frist, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), a co-sponsor of the Lieberman bill. “Whoever is out in front will look pretty good if the worst happens. Anyone who’s behind the curve will look like a dolt.

“There will be 9/11-style commissions all over the place and hundreds of Richard Clarkes testifying that they warned about what was coming and higher-ups didn’t listen,” he said, referring to the former White House counter-terrorism aide who charged that the Bush administration initially ignored al Qaeda.

Frist, clearly, is not ignoring the problem. In his lecture at Harvard, he said that national leaders “will not be able to look away from what could be coming soon — a front of unchecked and virulent epidemics, the potential of which could rise above your every other concern.”

“For what the world could soon face it did not see even in the great wars of the last century,” he said. “These epidemics ... could be devastating beyond imagination.”

The Biohazard panel that I attended last month was on just this issue. Ludlam was there from Lieberman's office (he's a lawyer not a doctor and seemed fairly clueless to me.) Lieberman's bill is a huge, bloated thing that's basically a giant giveaway to Big PhARMA, Frist's is worse. Dr. David Ozonoff, from the Boston U School of Public Health, pretty much demolished him. Dave (who is both a friend and colleague) and I were able to spend a little time together over dinner after the panel (yet another of my virtual relationships that's gone actual) and talk about the completely deteriorated state of public health in this country. Neither Lieberman's nor Frist's do anything for public health infrastructure. We can have all the drugs in the world, but if we don't have a delivery system, we're screwed, as Mike Osterholm would say.

The Prime Minister of Viet Nam was here earlier this week to talk with Bush and it doesn't appear that the subject ever came up. Unbelievable. Reuters is reporting today that a moderate pandemic could cost a half-million dead and two million sick enough to need hospitalization, while we have fewer than half that many beds.

The Flu Wiki will go live on Monday, the contributors are already slaving away on their first offerings.

(Reuters link via H5N1 blog.)

The SS Tour

Bush's Invitation-Only Speech Riles Crowd in Montgomery
Opponents of President, Social Security Plan Block Traffic

By Nancy Trejos
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, June 24, 2005; Page A08

President Bush visited Montgomery Blair High School yesterday for a town hall-style meeting to discuss his plan to partially privatize Social Security -- an appearance that drew about 400 protesters outside the Silver Spring school.

The loudest voices came from some Montgomery County residents and Blair students who questioned why they were not allowed inside. They were kept far from the president, but their shouts and beating drums could be heard by some of the 500 invitees waiting to pass through security.

Although Montgomery police officers tried to confine them to one area, many of the demonstrators broke away and briefly disrupted traffic on University Boulevard. "I feel like he's kind of trespassing," said Katie Frank, 16, who will be a Blair senior next school year. "He should know we don't support him."

Trent Duffy, a White House spokesman, said blocks of tickets were distributed to several nonprofit organizations, including Young America's Foundation, which selected the individuals who received them. The event was organized by the National Retirement Planning Coalition, a financial industry and advocacy group. Comedian and author Ben Stein, a Blair alumnus, is the group's honorary chairman.

Duffy said he did not know if any of those invited were county residents. "Once we give the tickets to the organizations, the White House doesn't ask for residency information," he said.

Bush said the Montgomery meeting and similar events across the country are important opportunities for him to explain his plan, which would give workers a chance to divert some payroll taxes to private investment accounts.

It's nice to see the next generation of local activists getting some real-world experience. This is the first time I've seen one of these Bamboozlepalooza events kick up some protest.

Summer Vacation

George Bush's long hot summer
Jun 23rd 2005
It should be used to rethink his ambitious second term

Reuters

GEORGE BUSH likes his summers hot. While the Clintons used to disappear to the cool breezes of Martha's Vineyard, he heads down to the furnace of Crawford, Texas, and spends an inordinate amount of time clearing brush on his ranch. This summer is likely to be sweatier than most.

Mr Bush's second term is not going well. The most visible disaster remains Iraq: the euphoria of the January election has worn off, six out of ten Americans want to bring their troops home and he has failed to get much help from the Europeans. His secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, is (correctly) beating the drum for democracy in the Middle East; but the face of American justice remains the internment camp at Guantánamo Bay, which Mr Bush seems unsure whether to close. A new Pew survey of global attitudes to the United States (see article) shows hearts and minds are not being won.

Things are also going badly at home, where his approval ratings have dipped below 45% (see article). The president has spent weeks on the road, flogging his ambitious plan to overhaul the Social Security system—and nobody seems to be buying it. This week, the ever less loyal Republican Congress again held up the nomination of John Bolton, his proposed ambassador to the United Nations. Mr Bush has had to postpone his efforts to reform the tax code, and he is struggling to hold down government spending, after his first-term splurge, and also to get through a tiny Central American trade deal.

Meanwhile, his promises to bring the country together after his re-election have faded away. Both the main Republican gambles on Capitol Hill this year—trying to “save” the life of Terri Schiavo, a brain-damaged Florida woman, and trying to force the Democrats to give up the filibuster they are using to block his judicial nominations—were deeply divisive and ended in failure. Congress is even less popular than he is. And soon (maybe next week, if the ailing Chief Justice William Rehnquist retires at the end of the Supreme Court's current term) Mr Bush may have to nominate a new Supreme Court justice—plunging the country into its bitterest fight yet.

To Mr Bush's many critics, his discomfort is easy to explain: it is the sound of a flock of Texan wild turkeys coming home to roost. This most loathed of presidents is getting his come-uppance for being wrong on just about everything.

This rejoicing seems wrong on two counts. First, it is premature to write off Mr Bush: even in this fallow period, he can point to some achievements, including a partial reform of the tort system at home and the glimmerings of an Israeli-Palestinian deal abroad. He still enjoys the support of his base: his approval ratings are 85% among Republicans. And the Democrats lack both ideas and leadership.

Second, from this newspaper's perspective, Mr Bush has not been wrong about everything. We have never shared his enthusiasm for the religious right (see article), which is one reason to watch his Supreme Court appointments nervously. And we have long regarded his approach to both fiscal policy and civil liberties as reckless: he deserves all the flak he gets over Guantánamo. But we have supported his push for democracy in the Middle East, his tough approach to the war on terror and, yes, the Iraq war; and in his domestic policy we have found things to admire, including his education reforms and his willingness to tackle Social Security.

So what is he doing wrong? Mr Bush's biggest problem remains execution—a crucial failing in one so ambitious. The mistakes vary from challenge to challenge, but they usually involve three things: mis-selling, an obstinate refusal to change course or personnel and a failure to reach out to opponents.

W remains what he has always been: a f**k-up. Expecting anything else is foolishness.

"Clearing brush" is supposed to appeal to the same set of Reaganauts who got all swoony over Ronny splitting logs. It worked for Peggy Noonan.

Advise and Consent

Bush would consult Democrats if Supreme Court post opens

By Thomas Ferraro, Reuters | June 24, 2005

WASHINGTON -- The White House said yesterday that President Bush would consult up to a point with Senate Democrats if there is an opening on the US Supreme Court.

''Yes," spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters when asked if Bush would listen to members of the opposition party as well as Republicans in the Senate, who would decide whether to confirm any nominee to the nation's highest court.

But other officials made clear that the White House was not offering Democrats a veto on who Bush would nominate. Bush has said he would nominate conservative judges who strictly interpret the Constitution and do not legislate from the bench.

There has been widespread speculation that there may be a retirement soon on the Supreme Court, giving Bush his first opportunity to make a nomination to that bench.

Senate Democrats sent a letter to Bush yesterday, saying, ''We sincerely hope that you will consult meaningfully with senators on both sides of the aisle well in advance, especially in the event of a Supreme Court vacancy."

In doing so, they cited a recent bipartisan truce on the Republican president's most contentious appeals court nominees that urged such consultations.

The accord, signed by seven Democrats and seven Republicans, averted a showdown on a threatened Senate rule change to ban filibusters against judicial nominees. Under the agreement, confirmation votes were cleared for some of Bush's appeals court nominees, and Democrats reserved the right to filibuster other candidates ''under extraordinary circumstances."

The strength of the accord may be tested by Bush's first nomination to the high court, particularly if Democrats view the candidate as too conservative and out of the mainstream of legal thinking.

Senate Democrats complain that Bush, unlike his predecessors, has not conferred with members of both sides of the political aisle in making judicial nominations.

Um, Mr. Ferraro, that's not what Scottie said. And anyone who thinks the Democrats are going to be invited to lunch with the Prez have their heads in an anatomically difficult place.

Heading South

Another Year of Living Misery in Baghdad
Residents Face 'So Many Problems'

By Andy Mosher and Bassam Sebti
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, June 24, 2005; Page A01

"So many problems are happening in the city," said Mohammed Sarhan, 50, a grocer in the southern Baghdad neighborhood of Dora. "Where do I start -- water, electricity, security, unemployment or health?"

"This is not a life," Sarhan added. "This is hell."

A gathering of representatives from more than 80 countries and organizations in Brussels on Wednesday was marked by statements of support for Iraq and announcements of programs to assist the country's nearly five-month-old interim government. The conference had been billed in large part as that government's debut on the world stage and an opportunity for its leaders to lay out their plans to rebuild the country.

In Baghdad, however, the government's performance was repeatedly cited in interviews as one of the many disappointing aspects of a year that began with promise. Elections on Jan. 30 drew large numbers of voters to the polls despite the threat of insurgent violence. But formal installation of a government and formation of a committee to write Iraq's next constitution were delayed for months, and efforts to bring more Sunni Muslim Arabs into the process after they boycotted the elections continue to sputter.

"We sacrificed our souls and went out to vote. What did we get? Simply nothing," said Karima Sadoun, 56, as she stopped to buy vegetables at a shop in the eastern Baghdad district of Ghadir.

In another eastern neighborhood, Bashar Hanna, 30, said: "We need action, not speeches. . . . Iraqis now are like a car stuck in the mud. Whenever this car wants to get out of the mud, it sticks more in the crater it created."

While the on-again, off-again power supply is not new to Baghdad, it is no less maddening than in past summers, residents said. Statistics for May and June are not yet available, but the amount of electricity generated in the capital decreased steadily through February, March and April even as nationwide supplies rose, according to State Department figures. Baghdad's daily average of 854 megawatts in April was scarcely more than a third of the city's estimated prewar output of 2,500 megawatts a day.

Sarhan, the grocer, said the power shortages were affecting sales. "Not too many people come and buy from me, because they don't have electricity," he said. "They don't have a place to keep what they buy."

Contrary to all the bullshit dished to the Senate Armed Services committee yesterday, the Brookings Institution is actually keeping track of quality of life issues in Iraq, like water and electricity. Click on the link and look at the graphs. It's not getting better. Go ahead and argue with Michael O'Hanlon at your own peril. I wouldn't.

"Saving" Iraq

Heads in the Iraqi Sand

Vice President Dick Cheney has never been one to let reality get in the way of his message. With his credibility already strained after it turned out that none of his pre-war assertions about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction were true, he is nonetheless still deluded by wishful thinking. A case in point: his recent assertion that increased violence in Iraq indicates the insurgency there is in its "last throes, if you will."

No, we won't, and neither, as it turns out, will the Army's top brass. Gen. John P. Abizaid, the top U.S. commander in the Persian Gulf, essentially said that was nonsense while testifying to the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday. "I believe there are more foreign fighters coming into Iraq than there were six months ago," he said, adding that the strength of the insurgency is "about the same" as it was six months ago.

Abizaid's remarks indicate that the military is not going to let itself become the fall guy for the administration's mistakes, including its refusal to adequately plan for the postwar occupation (which the latest British "Downing Street memos" confirm).

Abizaid and other military officials may also be preparing to request an increase in the size of the Army. With the military woefully overstretched, it's almost inconceivable that U.S. forces can continue at their current levels in Iraq and simultaneously provide support for a conflict with North Korea or elsewhere. Even in an administration that is often reluctant to acknowledge mistakes, Cheney's brazen disregard for unpleasant realities has been shameless. It was the vice president who signaled in August 2002 in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars that the administration was headed for war in Iraq by declaring that Hussein might soon be able to construct a nuclear bomb.

The war is not unwinnable, but it will be if Bush and those close to him continue to seek refuge in Panglossian fantasies about its true cost and duration. Before the war, the administration was able to bat down military officials such as now-retired Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, who as Army chief of staff predicted the U.S. would have to keep more than 200,000 troops in Iraq for years to pacify the country. No longer. Abizaid's remarks may loom as a turning point when the military confronts the administration with painful truths that cannot be dismissed as carping from appeasement-minded lefties. If you will.

What does "winnable" mean? What does it mean to "win" a war which was sold on lies? How can one "win" such a thing?

How much is Bush's Messiah complex going to cost us?

Character

Unlikely Allies Map Future
Deadlines Loom For Bush, Jafari

By Robin Wright and Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, June 24, 2005; Page A25

With a self-assured firmness, Jafari said Iraqis had proved they were willing to "sacrifice anything" for democracy when 8.5 million risked their lives to vote last January. And despite suicide bombings in Baghdad yesterday, he said car bombings have dropped from 12 to 14 a day to one a day or every other day. Growing support from Iraqis has generated new public cooperation and information -- "more than we can handle," he added. Tribes are now helpful in identifying terrorists, a word he repeatedly used, rejecting the term "insurgent."

"So why, when a few bands of criminals choose soft targets and blow up marketplaces and schools and hospitals, are we threatened and terrorized and feel victims to this? Why do we allow ourselves held captives or hostage?" he said. "Soldiers who have died have died for a worthy cause." After meetings with Vice President Cheney and national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley, Jafari stopped last night at Walter Reed Army Medical Center to meet injured U.S. troops.

The other two keys to ending the insurgency are securing Iraq's six borders, particularly with Syria, and activating a new judiciary so terrorists can be held to account, he said.

Jafari's remarks come as Bush has been told privately by U.S. generals this week that Iraq's military is growing stronger and could allow U.S. troops to start pulling out next year.

Aides say Bush intends to begin speaking more forcefully about Iraq's transition and the progress in crafting a new government from scratch. He plans a major speech Tuesday to mark the one-year anniversary of Iraq's sovereignty. It will emphasize the importance of Jafari's success in meeting the six-month deadlines for a constitution, national referendum and elections for a permanent government, aides said.

With just seven weeks until a constitution is due, Jafari also insisted that the Iraqis will make the deadline even though nothing has yet been written. "We know there are challenges and we know there are difficulties, but certainly the difficulties in writing a constitution will be not as severe or as intense as they were during the elections . . . in putting together the government," he said in the interview with The Post.

The Iraqi and U.S. optimism comes in the face of growing concern among many analysts, and even some U.S. officials, about the tight timing -- and the prospect of extending the deadline until mid-2006. A six-month delay is allowed under Iraq's temporary law, but experts fear it could fuel public disillusionment and the insurgency.

"They won't meet the deadline. They took three months to form a government and they've barely managed to form a constitutional committee, which can't meet as there's no water or electricity in the parliament's building. It's very symbolic," said Juan R.I. Cole, an Iraq expert at the University of Michigan.

There are also underlying tensions in the relationship, analysts say. Top U.S. officials had hoped interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, who was handpicked by U.S. and United Nations officials to lead the second phase of the transition last year, would stay in the job, said Larry Diamond, who served in the U.S.-occupation government and is author of "Squandered Victory: The American Occupation and the Bungled Effort to Bring Democracy to Iraq." Despite the fact both men are deeply religious, they see a different role for religion in Iraq.

Yet as they approach the last pivotal stage, Bush and Jafari share common political tactics. "Both of these guys are survivors and winners in their own political game. Bush was in the political wilderness for a long time and came back strong, and so did Jafari," Cole said. "Both are savvy operators and wouldn't be where they are without it."

The Posties seem to love that "self assured firmness," which has allowed them to give Bush a pass on nearly every assertion he has made, along with all of Jafari's bluster. These are two politicians who prefer myth to fact, and neither could survive on the truth.

The Price

The War President

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: June 24, 2005

VIENNA

In November 2002, Helen Thomas, the veteran White House correspondent, told an audience, "I have never covered a president who actually wanted to go to war" - but she made it clear that Mr. Bush was the exception. And she was right.

Leading the nation wrongfully into war strikes at the heart of democracy. It would have been an unprecedented abuse of power even if the war hadn't turned into a military and moral quagmire. And we won't be able to get out of that quagmire until we face up to the reality of how we got in.

Let me talk briefly about what we now know about the decision to invade Iraq, then focus on why it matters.

The administration has prevented any official inquiry into whether it hyped the case for war. But there's plenty of circumstantial evidence that it did.

And then there's the Downing Street Memo - actually the minutes of a prime minister's meeting in July 2002 - in which the chief of British overseas intelligence briefed his colleagues about his recent trip to Washington.

"Bush wanted to remove Saddam," says the memo, "through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and W.M.D. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." It doesn't get much clearer than that.

The U.S. news media largely ignored the memo for five weeks after it was released in The Times of London. Then some asserted that it was "old news" that Mr. Bush wanted war in the summer of 2002, and that W.M.D. were just an excuse. No, it isn't. Media insiders may have suspected as much, but they didn't inform their readers, viewers and listeners. And they have never held Mr. Bush accountable for his repeated declarations that he viewed war as a last resort.

Still, some of my colleagues insist that we should let bygones be bygones. The question, they say, is what we do now. But they're wrong: it's crucial that those responsible for the war be held to account.

Let me explain. The United States will soon have to start reducing force levels in Iraq, or risk seeing the volunteer Army collapse. Yet the administration and its supporters have effectively prevented any adult discussion of the need to get out.

On one side, the people who sold this war, unable to face up to the fact that their fantasies of a splendid little war have led to disaster, are still peddling illusions: the insurgency is in its "last throes," says Dick Cheney. On the other, they still have moderates and even liberals intimidated: anyone who suggests that the United States will have to settle for something that falls far short of victory is accused of being unpatriotic.

We need to deprive these people of their ability to mislead and intimidate. And the best way to do that is to make it clear that the people who led us to war on false pretenses have no credibility, and no right to lecture the rest of us about patriotism.

The good news is that the public seems ready to hear that message - readier than the media are to deliver it. Major media organizations still act as if only a small, left-wing fringe believes that we were misled into war, but that "fringe" now comprises much if not most of the population.

In a Gallup poll taken in early April - that is, before the release of the Downing Street Memo - 50 percent of those polled agreed with the proposition that the administration "deliberately misled the American public" about Iraq's W.M.D. In a new Rasmussen poll, 49 percent said that Mr. Bush was more responsible for the war than Saddam Hussein, versus 44 percent who blamed Saddam.

Once the media catch up with the public, we'll be able to start talking seriously about how to get out of Iraq.

During the run up to the war, I asked the liberal hawks, "What is it worth to you?" They'd read Kenan Makiya's book about how bad Saddam was and were ready to go to war to bring democracy to Iraq, but none of them could answer my question. "How many lives and how many dollars will you spend?" I got no answer.

sneezles

Stock News : Biotech/Pharmaceuticals Email This Story Print This Story

Gilead Seeks to End Roche Pact

By Althea Chang
TheStreet.com Staff Reporter
6/23/2005 5:11 PM EDT

Gilead (GILD:Nasdaq - commentary - research) plans to split from its flu pill partner Roche for its "lack of commitment," the company said Thursday.

The Foster City, Calif., company said it wants to cut loose from its Swiss partner for breaching a 1996 agreement for the development and licensing of Tamiflu, an antiviral pill used to treat and prevent influenza. Gilead said it has sent Roche a notice of termination.

"Despite our repeated communication of concerns over the last several years," said Dr. John C. Martin, president and chief executive of Gilead, "Roche has not adequately demonstrated the requisite commitment to Tamiflu since its launch in the United States nearly six years ago, nor has it allocated the necessary resources to realize the potential of the product as a treatment and preventive for influenza."

Elsewhere, developing countries are stocking up on the antiviral drug, and last month, Roche quadrupled its production capacity, in case a human flu pandemic caused by evolving strains of the avian flu plaguing Asia should break out.

Gilead shares were up $1.43, or 3%, to $42.85 in after-hours trading.

Make this what you will. I merely note that the spring allergies have finally kicked in tonight and I'm a sneezing fool. Flu? Bring it on. It will be a relief to have some symptoms and take a day off. Hrmmph. I feel like crap and look worse.

That Covers It

The war memos and political shenanigans

Molly Ivins, Creators Syndicate
Published June 23, 2005

It was always weird that the White House kept saying it knew Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, but it would never tell the UN inspectors where. Yes, I suspected all that, but I was not the head of British intelligence in the summer of 2002, for pity's sake.

Here are some aggravating factors. Thomas L. Friedman, columnist for the New York Times, recently wrote that "liberals" no longer want to talk about the war because we were against it to start with and probably hope it ends in disaster. Good Lord, who does he think we are? Does this man actually think we are out here cheering every time another American is killed?

Mr. Friedman, real, actual, honest-to-God American liberals are out here in the heartland, and we know the kids who are dying in Iraq. They are from our hometowns. We know their parents. That's why we hate this war. That's why we tried to tell everybody else it was a ghastly idea.

We are not sitting here gloating because it is the horrible mess we said it would be. We're in agony. There is nothing pleasurable about being a Cassandra. I have said from the beginning that if this thing worked out the way Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, then-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Vice President Dick Cheney all said it would, I would be perfectly happy to get down on my knees and kiss President Bush's feet.

The second aggravation is that the very prestigious papers that are now dismissing the Downing Street memos have already themselves admitted that their prewar coverage was--I don't know, you pick the adjective. Slack? Inadequate? Less than rigorous? Wrong? And now they're saying, "Oh, hell, this isn't news, we knew it all along."

Michael Kinsley, editorial and opinion editor at the Los Angeles Times, which has certainly done some commendable reporting on this war and taken the heat for it too, also dismisses the memos. I don't get it. You suddenly get evidence--I don't know if it proves or just strongly suggests--that this administration lied to all of us about war, and your reaction is not to go after the administration, but to dismiss the evidence? And to put down the people who are calling you screaming about why you haven't bothered to mention it? What is wrong with this picture?

Also aggravating, the Republicans in Congress refuse to allow hearings. Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) held "Democratic hearings," without the R's, in a room described as a large closet, because they were not allowed to use an actual hearing room. Under these difficult circumstances, 30 Democratic representatives persisted in asking the important question, "Were Americans deliberately misled in the lead-up to this war?" When did we come to the point where the minority has no place?

I don't know if these memos represent an impeachable offense--although I must say, I don't want to bring up the Bill Clinton comparison again. But they strike me as a lot worse than anything Richard Nixon ever contemplated. He used the government for petty political vindictiveness.

Heck, I'd settle for that again, over what we're looking at now.

The irony of Deep Throat surfacing after all these years in the midst of this memo mess is almost too precious. Does The Washington Post have any hungry young reporters on Metro anymore? I'd say, start with: Who did Richard Dearlove, the head of Britain's MI-6 intelligence service, meet with besides then-CIA Director George Tenet?

Gitmo, Round 2

It's not over:

UN investigators say U.S. stalling prison visits
Thu Jun 23, 2005 4:38 PM BST

By Stephanie Nebehay

GENEVA (Reuters) - United Nations human rights investigators on Thursday accused the United States of stalling on their request to visit foreign terror suspects at the U.S.-run prisons in Iraq, Afghanistan and at Guantanamo Bay.

The United States had not replied to a year-long request to probe "serious allegations of torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment", arbitrary detention and violations of detainees' right to health and due process at Guantanamo.

"The lack of a definitive answer despite repeated requests suggests that the United States is not willing to cooperate with the United Nations human rights machinery on this issue," they said in a statement which pointedly declared that no state was above international human rights law.

Manfred Nowak, U.N. special rapporteur on torture, said he had received "numerous allegations of torture and ill-treatment" of detainees at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo, Cuba.

"At a certain point you have to take well-founded allegations as proven in the absence of a clear explanation by the government concerned," he told a news conference.

The fact the U.N. investigators had been denied access for so long was "an indication that there are certain conditions they want to hide from the public," he added.

Paul Hunt, U.N. special rapporteur on the right to physical and mental health, cited reports of a "worrying deterioration in the mental health of many detainees", dozens of suicide attempts and coercive interrogation methods including sleep deprivation.

Their request to visit all U.S.-held detainees abroad followed a scandal sparked by photographs taken in the U.S.-run Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad, showing inmates, some in hoods, being sexually humiliated by soldiers and intimidated with dogs.

Activists have expressed alarm that many people arrested since the Sept 11, 2001 attacks on America have been held for more than three years without being charged, some incommunicado, in a legal black hole that they say facilitates mistreatment.

The U.N. investigators said they would conduct their own investigation on Guantanamo and draw up a report by year-end.

From Abroad

The Real News in the Downing Street Memos
By Michael Smith, Michael Smith writes on defense issues for the Sunday Times of London.

American media coverage of the Downing Street memo has largely focused on the assertion by Sir Richard Dearlove, head of British foreign intelligence, that war was seen as inevitable in Washington, where "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

But another part of the memo is arguably more important. It quotes British Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon as saying that "the U.S. had already begun 'spikes of activity' to put pressure on the regime." This we now realize was Plan B.

Put simply, U.S. aircraft patrolling the southern no-fly zone were dropping a lot more bombs in the hope of provoking a reaction that would give the allies an excuse to carry out a full-scale bombing campaign, an air war, the first stage of the conflict.

British government figures for the number of bombs dropped on southern Iraq in 2002 show that although virtually none were used in March and April, an average of 10 tons a month were dropped between May and August.

But these initial "spikes of activity" didn't have the desired effect. The Iraqis didn't retaliate. They didn't provide the excuse Bush and Blair needed. So at the end of August, the allies dramatically intensified the bombing into what was effectively the initial air war.

The number of bombs dropped on southern Iraq by allied aircraft shot up to 54.6 tons in September alone, with the increased rates continuing into 2003.

In other words, Bush and Blair began their war not in March 2003, as everyone believed, but at the end of August 2002, six weeks before Congress approved military action against Iraq.

The way in which the intelligence was "fixed" to justify war is old news.

The real news is the shady April 2002 deal to go to war, the cynical use of the U.N. to provide an excuse, and the secret, illegal air war without the backing of Congress.

WaPo's Jefferson Morley gives a round-up of world press reaction to the Downing Street Memos:

"In one of the memos, British Foreign Office political director Peter Ricketts asks whether Bush administration had a clear and compelling military reason for war," Wagner wrote in a story picked up by the Times of India, the Winnepeg Sun and Xinhua, the Chinese news service.

"US scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and al-Qaida is so far frankly unconvincing," Ricketts said in the memo. "For Iraq, 'regime change' does not stack up. It sounds like a grudge between Bush and Saddam."

Univision.com, Web site of the international Spanish-language TV network with a big U.S. audience, also picked up the story.

"What is surprising," said Washington correspondent Jorge Ramos Avalos, is "how little attention [the memo] has received in some of the most important news media in the United States despite its being an official document that contradicts the North American version of the beginning of the war."

"Taken together, these papers amount to an indictment of the way the British and American peoples were led to war," says columnist Jonathan Freedland of the Guardian.

Some in the American mainstream media, or MSM as bloggers call it, dispute that the Downing Street memo offers anything new that would change public understanding of the decision to go to war in Iraq.

"The memos add not a single fact to what was previously known about the administration's prewar deliberations," declared the editorial page of The Washington Post last week. "Hearsay," said the Rocky Mountain News. And radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh has suggested, without evidence, the documents may be forged. (In fact, The British government has not challenged the authenticity of any of the documents cited in recent news reports.)

But an increasing number of news editors are recognizing the newsworthiness of the DSM story. Newsday, the New York tabloid, picked up the AP story. The Houston Chronicle published DSM excerpts this week. So did the San Francisco Chronicle. The editors of the Detroit Free Press say the DSM story is "too significant to be dismissed as simply old news -- as the White House would like -- or left to historians."

These aren't the big-name national news organizations that bloggers call the MSM. But nor are they partisan liberal organs inclined to buy into fact-free theories. The interest of such regional mainstays of the MSM demonstrates how the Internet has transformed the news business.

Thousands of bloggers now do the sort of sifting and weighing and disseminating of information that was formerly the exclusive province of a relatively small group of media professionals concentrated in the East Coast. The growing DSM coverage, said the BBC this week, is a "bloggers' victory."

Local news editors can read the DSM documents and the original Times of London stories themselves. They might be persuaded by the reporting of The Post's Dana Milbank, who portrayed Rep. John Conyers's DSM hearings on Capitol Hill last week as an excursion into the "land of the make-believe." But with a click of the mouse they can go to the coverage of the same event in the Guardian of London and see the DSM story described as "tantamount to the first word of tapes in the Nixon White House during the Watergate scandal."

The point is not that either account has a monopoly on truth, but now there is another force that can help put a story on the news agenda.

Thanks to the global reach of the Internet, the two-month old scoop of a London daily continues to live in the American political debate and diverse areas of the media landscape.

Cognitive Dissonance

Iraq - the issue we have chosen to forget

By far the biggest casualties are Iraqis, particularly those who have enlisted in the security forces. As the Americans training them readily admit, the recruits have applied not out of the goodness of their hearts, but because in most parts of the country it is the only way to earn a living. And now the Iraqi government, under instruction from Washington, is poised to make matters worse with a plan for huge cuts in the public sector. Iraq has been told that it has to reduce public spending under a debt-reduction scheme sponsored by, you've guessed it, the International Monetary Fund. Given that the public sector accounts for about a half of the jobs anywhere in the country, any cuts will exacerbate social tensions. In the sweltering heat of an Iraqi summer, the suffering continues, with intermittent energy supplies, widespread health problems (including malnutrition among children) and a growing lack of safe drinking water and sanitation (40 per cent of Baghdad households report sewage on their streets). More than two years after the US rolled into Baghdad, it is a dismal stock-take for the Pax Americana.

Both sides are involved in a war of attrition, a war without end. US forces, now supported by British warplanes, make sporadic attacks on insurgent strongholds of devastating magnitude but dwindling effectiveness. The near destruction of Fallujah won them a few months of relative quiescence, at the expense of an estimated 700 deaths. Recently, it seems the insurgents have regained a foothold in the city. The aim of Operation Lightning around Baghdad and Operation Spear by the Syrian border is to "pacify" troublesome areas. The result of these actions is to stoke anger and increase the pool of young suicide bombers from which the various terrorist groups can now pick and choose.

The Americans long ago gave up any pretence at a hearts-and-minds strategy. Apart from the odd "spontaneous" conversation with a shopkeeper for the cameras, with heavy reinforcements at the ready, the US confines itself to brute force. About 60,000 Iraqis are now said to be held in detention centres, with fewer than a third of the detainees registered. The others have simply disappeared, with their relatives unable to contact them.

Military commanders are planning to relocate troops from Iraq's towns, moving them to four giant blast-proof bases. But, as the recent attacks on targets next to Baghdad's government and security "green zone" testify, nowhere is safe.

For the first time in a while, Iraq is beginning to flicker on the US political radar. A steady stream of documents in recent weeks has shown the extent to which Tony Blair and his advisers accepted in the summer of 2002 that George W Bush had committed to war, and how they set themselves the task of making the facts fit the political exigency, even though they knew that the Americans had made no preparation for a "protracted and costly" occupation.

The revelations have received considerable coverage in the serious segments of the US press. In the UK they have barely registered. On 30 May, the New Statesman disclosed "spikes" of bombardment by the British and US air forces designed to provoke Saddam Hussein into war nine months before actual hostilities began. With a few honourable exceptions, most UK media have done Blair's business for him. They have decreed the general election as the cut-off point for Iraq and decided that readers and viewers have "moved on".

Conspiracy? Laziness? Or, perhaps, the unfortunate reality is that in our minds we have raised the bar so high that only the most heinous acts or revelations have an effect. It seems that we are all unshockable now.

Reading this, while listening to Rummy and Myers offer their fairy tales to the Senate Armed Forces Committee, may cause my head to explode.

Saudi Terror Suspect Said Killed in Iraq

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: June 23, 2005

Filed at 9:08 a.m. ET

The bombings Wednesday and Thursday served as a chilling reminder of how potent militants remain in the capital despite around-the-clock patrols by American and Iraqi troops.

Most residents of the two Baghdad neighborhoods that were attacked are from Iraq's Shiite majority, while the insurgents are almost exclusively Sunni Arabs, a minority that dominated Iraq until Saddam Hussein's ouster two years ago.

The explosions both days were carried out at times when large crowds were on the capital's streets. Wednesday night's bombs came hours before an 11 p.m. curfew, when many residents are out at eateries or chatting on the streets before locking themselves inside their homes.

Thursday's twin explosions took place when many are just beginning their daily routines. Five police officers were among the 15 dead.

A young boy, his left leg missing from below the knee, sat on the sidewalk near a mangled bicycle, screaming as a man tried to comfort him. The force of the blasts blew off store shutters, and the surrounding sidewalks were covered with debris, including shattered glass, concrete slabs and charred vegetables and fruit.

Colonoscopy

Rummy and Myers are testifying before the Senate Armed Services committee today. I'll be watching on C-Span 3. You can watch the webcast here

Kristol Ball

via Suburban Guerrilla

The Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol reads the tea leaves:

O'Connor, Not Rehnquist? And Gonzales to replace O'Connor? by William Kristol 06/22/2005 5:40:00 PM Warning: THIS IS SPECULATION. Obviously, I think it's somewhat well-informed speculation, or else I wouldn't be writing this. But it is speculation.

(1) There will be a Supreme Court resignation within the next week. But it will be Justice O'Connor, not Chief Justice Rehnquist. There are several tea-leaf-like suggestions that O'Connor may be stepping down, including the fact that she has apparently arranged to spend much more time in Arizona beginning this fall. There are also recent intimations that Chief Justice Rehnquist may not resign. This would be consistent with Justice O'Connor having confided her plan to step down to the chief a while ago. Rehnquist probably believes that it wouldn't be good for the Court to have two resignations at once, so he would presumably stay on for as long as his health permits, and/or until after Justice O'Connor's replacement is confirmed.

(2) President Bush will appoint Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to replace O'Connor. Bush certainly wants to put Gonzales on the Supreme Court. Presidents usually find a way to do what they want to do.

And his aides will have an argument to make to conservatives (like me) who would be unhappy with a Gonzales pick: Bush would not, after all, be replacing a conservative stalwart like Rehnquist with Gonzales. Gonzales would be taking O'Connor's seat, and Gonzales is likely to be as conservative as, or even more conservative than, O'Connor. Indeed, Karl Rove will continue, Gonzales is as conservative a nominee to replace O'Connor as one could find who could overcome

a threatened Democratic filibuster. Bush aides will also assure us privately that when Rehnquist does step down, Bush will nominate a strong conservative as his replacement. They might not tell us that nominee would be as an associate justice, for Bush would plan to then promote Gonzales to chief justice--thus creating a "Gonzales Court," a truly distinctive Bush legacy.

A Gonzales nomination would, in my view, virtually forfeit any chance in the near term for a fundamental reversal in the downward drift of American constitutional jurisprudence. But I now think it is more likely than not to happen.

Rank speculation, but Kristol is a Repub insider.

Psy-Ops

Flight 15 to Basra: Few Perks, but No Bombs. No Complaints.

By EDWARD WONG
Published: June 23, 2005

ABOARD FLIGHT 15, over southern Iraq - The smiling flight attendants strode down the aisle of the Boeing 727 in crisp green uniforms, handing out cold cans of soda and pieces of cake.

Iraqi officials say the flight is a crucial step in restoring an air network that was ravaged by the economic sanctions imposed after the Persian Gulf war of 1991.

But it was more than just the food service, a throwback to another age of aviation, that brought a sense of relief to the passengers.

Just minutes earlier, the plane had leveled off after a steep corkscrew ascent from Baghdad International Airport. It was cruising now at 23,000 feet. In one piece.

No smoke trails from surface-to-air missiles, no rocket attacks, no mortar hits.

"The flight will be good, God willing," Awadees Razoiam, 55, an oil geologist, said as he bit into his cake.

Such is the scene aboard the Iraqi equivalent of the New York-to-Washington shuttle - a 55-minute hop between Baghdad and the southern oil city of Basra that costs $75 for a one-way coach ticket. The flight, begun this month, is the first domestic service operated by state-owned Iraqi Airways since the American-led invasion.

There are no frequent-flier benefits and no free newspapers at the gate. But the flight allows quick and safe passage (relatively speaking) between the capital and the city at the heart of Iraq's economy, making it perhaps the most significant in-country transportation development since the war.

Jets carry travelers over a parched landscape containing some of the most dangerous terrain in the country: over the insurgent-dominated area south of Baghdad known as the Triangle of Death; over swaths of marshlands plagued by bandits; over the roadways in the south, where radical Shiite fighters plant bombs to ambush British Army convoys.

There is little to love about the six-hour drive between Baghdad and Basra, Mr. Razoiam said. "You have to hide all your money and all your jewels."

Iraqi officials say the flight is a crucial step in restoring an air network that was ravaged by the economic sanctions imposed after the Persian Gulf war of 1991.

Residents of Basra, a relatively safe city of at least two million that is the second-largest in Iraq, also boast that the new route could herald the rebirth of the city as a Middle East aviation hub. Because Baghdad is steeped in violence, they say, business people and tourists will want to fly into Basra instead. Iraqi Airways officials say they hope to start direct flights between Basra and London by the end of the summer.

From 1932 to 1964, Al Maaqal Airport in Basra, built by the British in the twilight of empire, served as the main commercial airport in Iraq and a major regional hub, with Trans World Airlines and others touching down there on a traverse of Asia, said Ibrahim Abid Ali, an airport manager and air traffic controller. But in 1964, the national government ordered international flights to go through Baghdad instead. Befitting its colonial past, Al Maaqal now serves as a base for the British Army, charged with controlling southern Iraq.

Iraqi Airways operates out of a relatively new site, Basra International Airport, lined with Italian marble and completed by German engineers in 1987. It was inaugurated with an Iraqi Airways flight to Asia. But most flights were grounded by the sanctions of the 1990's, and it was not until 2001, after other Middle Eastern airlines had already defied the United Nations by flying into Baghdad, that Iraqi Airways began regular daily flights between Baghdad and Basra.

The British military occupies half the main terminal of the new airport but is expected to leave this fall. The American government has already hired contractors to begin renovating the airport and expects to spend at least $40 million on the project.

"The opening of Basra airport gives us a lot of optimism," said Muhammad al-Waeli, the governor of Basra Province, referring to the airport's reopening this month. "It will help bring investment and capital to our city. It's a safe airport, safer than Baghdad."

Um, you can't get to the airport in Baghdad without thousands of dollars of hired security guards for the ride, so I don't really know what the value of a $75 shuttle flight to Basra means.

The Times and Ed Wong have bought a deft piece of propaganda from the Pentagon. The notions of crisp flight uniforms and cold cans of soda against 130 degree Babylonian summer do jar. It's a pretty picture and very little else.

Avian Influenza Web Resources - for those interested

I fully understand that not all Bumpers are as focused on tracking the avian influenza issue as Melanie and myself.

But for those interested, I've made a desultory search for blogs and web pages covering the H5N1 issue to a greater or lesser extent. I've uncovered the odd one or two.

Recombinomics | Elegant Evolution
Dr. Henry Niman's blog. Take-no-prisoners virology from the front lines.

Daily HealthCast
The successor to John Hart's blog.

H5N1
A blog dedicated to coverage of the developing Asian influenza issue.

The Coming Influenza Pandemic?
Another dedicated H5N1 news blog.

EPIDEMIca // H5N1 // M-J Milloy
Yet another blog focused on H5N1 news.

Effect Measure
A general epidemiology news blog hosted by a group of physicians writing under the collective pen name "Revere". Strong focus on H5N1. The editorials do not pull any punches at all. "Revere" is an appropriate nom-de-guerre.

Biopeer: Avian Flu (H5N1)
The H5N1 section of a general life sciences news blog.

Cold and Flu Blog
A blog as informative about sniffles as about the Real Bad Stuff.

InfluenzaPandemic - AndyPryke.com
Not a blog. But just chock full of background data, together with an influenza chronology spanning more than 2000 years. Absolutely priceless.

CIDRAP >> Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy
Not a blog. Out of the University of Minnesota. Cutting-edge news is posted here.

Main ProMED-mail
"ProMED-mail is a program of the International Society for Infectious Diseases." Not a blog. Infectious disease news, culled from just about everywhere.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
The home page of the CDC. This should be an authoritative site. But director Dr. Julie Gerberding is a Bushco appointee. Sigh.

WHO | Avian influenza
The World Health Organization's Avian Influenza page. Tracks H5N1 worldwide through the eyes of the WHO.

Melanie adds: The new Avian Influenza wiki will go live on Monday. I'll give you the URL as we get there.

12 and 12 moment

War and Weakness

By RICHARD A. CLARKE
Published: June 19, 2005

In Washington, people in government often communicate with one another and with the public in guarded, even coded statements. The mass media seldom detect, note or explain these messages. Lately one of those messages has been coming from senior American military officials, both on and off the record. Their message, decrypted, is that things in Iraq are not going well and may not do so for a while. Their corollary charge is that the American military has been seriously damaged. Skip to next paragraph Anthony Russo

The top man in the military is about to retire. Perhaps sensing the freedom of speech that comes with retirement, Gen. Richard B. Myers has let slip two interesting observations. First, he noted that the insurgency is about as strong now as it was a year ago. At a second appearance, he noted that insurgencies like the one in Iraq have lasted 7 to 12 years. It's not hard to see the message that we may well be fighting in Iraq in 2012, at the end of the next president's first term.

Although official administration spokesmen have for some time been saying things like ''We have turned a corner in Iraq'' or ''We have broken the back of the insurgency'' or ''The insurgents are in a last-gasp campaign,'' the truth seems to be otherwise. A brief quiet followed the Iraqi election, but it has been broken by a sustained round of insurgent attacks. Iraqi civilian casualties in May were up by 33 percent over April, while Iraqi police deaths were up 75 percent over the same period. American military dead in Iraq more than doubled last month over the lull in March. Because the need for large numbers of troops there has remained much longer than originally planned (some reports suggest that Pentagon civilian planners anticipated a force of only 30,000 by 2004; we now have more than four times that number in Iraq), many of the active-duty Army units in Iraq are on their second deployments.

In addition to the thousands of American and Iraqi casualties, one victim of this slow bleeding in Iraq is the American military as an institution. Across America, the National Guard, designed to assist civil authorities in domestic crises (like the pandemic of a lethal avian flu that some public-health planners fear), is in tatters. Re-enlistments are down, training for domestic support missions is spotty at best, equipment is battered and many units are either in Iraq or on their way to or from it. Now the rot is beginning to spread into the regular Army. Recruiters are coming up dry, and some, under pressure to produce new troops, have reportedly been complicit in suspect applications.

The implications for the all-volunteer military are significant. With almost every unit in the Army on the conveyor belt into and out of Iraq, few units are really combat-ready for other missions. If the North Korean regime that is often called crazy were to roll its huge army the few kilometers into South Korea, significant American reinforcements would be a long time coming. This raises the possibility that the United States may have to resort to nuclear weapons to stop the North Koreans, as has been contemplated with increasing seriousness since the last Nuclear Posture Review in 2002.

The Army is already the smallest it has been since the Second World War. If the current trend in volunteering for the Army continues for long, the Pentagon may have to consider disbanding units or requesting the reinstatement of the draft. Most military experts consider either option to be a disaster for the Army as an institution, reducing its currently limited capabilities.

By the end of President Bush's term, the war in Iraq could end up costing $600 billion, more than six times what some administration officials had projected. Now the many other costs are also beginning to become clearer.

Maybe it is time to at least begin a public dialogue about ''staying the course.'' Opponents of an ''early'' departure of American forces say it would result in chaos in Iraq. Yet we already have chaos, and how sure can we be that sectarian fighting will not follow our departure whenever we leave? Is it unpatriotic to ask if the major reason for the fighting in Iraq is that we are still there?

It's a hoary old case of 12-Step wisdom: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a new result is madness. Maybe it is time to try something else.

Single-tasking

A Moment to Seize With North Korea

By Donald Gregg and Don Oberdorfer

Wednesday, June 22, 2005; Page A21

In efforts to reassure North Korea, the United States has repeatedly declared that it recognizes North Korean sovereignty, has no hostile intent and is willing to arrange security guarantees and move toward normal relations with Pyongyang once the nuclear issue is resolved. Kim's remarks present a golden opportunity to take the U.S. offers to the one and only person in North Korea who has the power of decision. According to those who have met him personally in the past -- including former secretary of state Madeleine Albright, former South Korean president Kim Dae Jung and Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi -- Kim is more flexible than anyone else in his government. That is not surprising, since he sets the line and others must follow.

As we well know, this is not the first time that Kim has sought engagement rather than hostility with President Bush, whom he discussed in surprisingly positive terms last Friday. During a visit we made to Pyongyang in November 2002 following a nuclear-related trip by Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly, we were given a written personal message from Kim to Bush declaring: "If the United States recognizes our sovereignty and assures non-aggression, it is our view that we should be able to find a way to resolve the nuclear issue in compliance with the demands of a new century." Further, he declared, "If the United States makes a bold decision, we will respond accordingly."

We took the message to senior officials at the White House and State Department and urged the administration to follow up on Kim's initiative, which we have not made public until now. Then deep in secret planning and a campaign of public persuasion for the invasion of Iraq, the administration spurned engagement with North Korea. Kim moved within weeks to expel the inspectors from the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency, withdraw from the Non-Proliferation Treaty and reopen the plutonium-producing facilities that had been shut down since 1994 under an agreement negotiated with the Clinton administration.

Now the North Koreans are believed to have produced the raw material for at least a half-dozen nuclear weapons and many believe their claim to have fabricated the weapons themselves. Early this year North Korea declared that it has become "a full-fledged nuclear weapons state" and that it is working to produce still more atomic arms, all in response to U.S. hostility.

Kim's statements in Pyongyang Friday may be a sign that he is uncomfortable with persistent pressure from the United States and his Asian neighbors to return to the six-nation talks, which he left a year ago. He may also be feeling the pinch of deepening food shortages in his country. By reversing his nuclear program in return for the guarantees he seeks, Kim could avert stronger measures being discussed in Washington and other capitals to force the issue. These measures, in our judgment, promise only greater confrontation and growing danger on all sides.

By visiting Pyongyang and engaging Kim, Rice would not be condoning North Korea's human rights practices. The State Department has made clear that human rights is an issue to be resolved in negotiations on establishing full U.S. relations, not in talks on the nuclear question. If she responds to Kim's latest statements with a well-prepared visit and successful negotiations, Rice will have earned her spurs as America's chief diplomat.

Very little danger of that, I think. This crew cannot walk and chew gum at the same time.

Sufferage

Extending Democracy to Ex-Offenders

Published: June 22, 2005

The laws that strip ex-offenders of the right to vote across the United States are the shame of the democratic world. Of an estimated five million Americans who were barred from voting in the last presidential election, a majority would have been able to vote if they had been citizens of countries like Britain, France, Germany or Australia. Many nations take the franchise so seriously that they arrange for people to cast ballots while being held in prison. In the United States, by contrast, inmates can vote only in two states, Maine and Vermont.

This distinctly American bias - which extends to jobs, housing and education - keeps even law- abiding ex-offenders confined to the margins of society, where they have a notoriously difficult time building successful lives. A few states, at least, are beginning to grasp this point. Some are reconsidering postprison sanctions, including laws that bar ex-offenders from the polls.

This is a particular hobby horse of mine. It makes no sense at all to me to lose the most fundamental right of citizenship because of a prison sentence. This amounts to a lifetime sentence, regardless of how much time a person has actually done.

Drilling the West

Here's why those environmentally unfriendly judges are important...to Republicans.

Drilling in West Pits Republican Policy Against Republican Base
Kevin Moloney for The New York Times

A natural gas compression station and drilling rig below the Roan Plateau in Colorado. Some residents are fighting the drilling leases.

By TIMOTHY EGAN
Published: June 22, 2005

RIFLE, Colo., June 15 - As a sometime carpenter, Keith Goddard has all the work he can handle in this place where new houses rise with the sun and a gas well is poked into the ground just about every other day.

Linn Blancett, a rancher, standing by a patch of ground he said had been contaminated by oil. Mr. Blancett and his wife have filed suit.

But Mr. Goddard is worried sick. From his backyard here on Colorado's West Slope, he can see the little bit of unspoiled paradise left in this valley, the high, green top of the Roan Plateau. That piece of public land is where he goes to make his living in the fall, as a hunting guide. Energy companies want to drill on it.

"It's crazy what's going on," said Mr. Goddard, who has a face deeply reddened by the mountain sun.

Mr. Goddard, who says he is a political independent, has organized hunters to protest government plans for introducing gas wells into grazing areas for deer and elk. "I'm not against oil and gas development," he said, "but when you put wells in every 20 acres, that means you're no longer managing public lands for the public anymore."

Amid the clank, clatter and fire of the largest natural gas boom ever on public land in the West, a new kind of sagebrush rebellion is stirring. Ranchers, cowboys, small property owners and local government leaders - the core of the Republican base in the Rocky Mountain West - are chafing at the pace and scope of the Bush administration's push for energy development.

Some people are filing lawsuits, challenging federal authority to drill in certain areas. Others are protesting new gas and oil leases. Federal officials say they have received thousands of letters opposed to drilling in areas like the Roan Plateau. One state, Wyoming, has passed legislation giving landowners more say in how mineral rights beneath their property are tapped.

The battle cry is the same as in past movements: a call for local control over a distant federal landlord. But for the first time, it is the Republicans who find themselves the target of angry speeches about lost property rights and tone-deaf federal land managers. And people who have been on opposing sides of the major land battles in the West - mainly property owners and ranchers versus environmentalists - are now allies.

"The word from Washington is drill, drill, drill, and now they've basically destroyed our ranch," said Tweeti Blancett, a coordinator for George Bush's presidential campaign in San Juan County, N.M. "We've been in a firestorm down here. A lot of Republicans are upset."

The 32,000 acres of public land that Ms. Blancett and her husband, Linn, have long used for grazing cattle is now riddled with gas wells and pipelines. Petroleum byproducts have poisoned the water, she said, killing animals and causing the fertility rate to plummet.

The couple has hired Karen Budd-Falen, one of the best-known lawyers in fights over federal land policies. They have sued to try to force the federal Bureau of Land Management to clean up the land. Ms. Budd-Falen got her start working against environmental restrictions with the Mountain States Legal Foundation, an intellectual incubator for such property rights stalwarts as James Watt, the former interior secretary under President Ronald Reagan.

Add this to the coming fights over water rights and you've got interesting possibilities for litigation.

Planning

This is the most extensive article to appear so far in the secular media, which may mean that they are starting to take it seriously. Dr. Osterholm is treating some of the macro, societal issues in this piece. The new Flu Wiki, which I will be writing and editing with Revere and DemFromCT will treat some of those issues, as well as what to do at both the personal and community level. This is important: it is off the screens of our local politicians right now and it is going to be up to us to overcome their denial and force them to begin to do some planning.

Preparing for the Next Pandemic
By MICHAEL T. OSTERHOLM

From the July/August 2005 issue of Foreign Affairs.

Michael T. Osterholm is Director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy, Associate Director of the Department of Homeland Security's National Center for Food Protection and Defense, and Professor at the University of Minnesota's School of Public Health.

The world must form a better understanding of the potential for the emergence of a pandemic influenza strain. A pandemic is coming. It could be caused by H5N1 or by another novel strain. It could happen tonight, next year, or even ten years from now.

The signs are alarming: the number of human and animal H5N1 infections has been increasing; small clusters of cases have been documented, suggesting that the virus may have come close to sustained human-to-human transmission; and H5N1 continues to evolve in the virtual genetic reassortment laboratory provided by the unprecedented number of people, pigs, and poultry in Asia. The population explosion in China and other Asian countries has created an incredible mixing vessel for the virus. Consider this sobering information: the most recent influenza pandemic, of 1968-69, emerged in China, when its population was 790 million; today it is 1.3 billion. In 1968, the number of pigs in China was 5.2 million; today it is 508 million. The number of poultry in China in 1968 was 12.3 million; today it is 13 billion. Changes in other Asian countries are similar. Given these developments, as well as the exponential growth in foreign travel over the past 50 years, an influenza pandemic could be more devastating than ever before.

Can disaster be avoided? The answer is a qualified yes. Although a coming pandemic cannot be avoided, its impact can be considerably lessened. It depends on how the leaders of the world -- from the heads of the G-8 to local officials -- decide to respond. They must recognize the economic, security, and health threat that the next influenza pandemic poses and invest accordingly. Each leader must realize that even if a country has enough vaccine to protect its citizens, the economic impact of a worldwide pandemic will inflict substantial pain on everyone. The resources required to prepare adequately will be extensive. But they must be considered in light of the cost of failing to invest: a global world economy that remains in a shambles for several years.

This is a critical point in history. Time is running out to prepare for the next pandemic. We must act now with decisiveness and purpose. Someday, after the next pandemic has come and gone, a commission much like the 9/11 Commission will be charged with determining how well government, business, and public health leaders prepared the world for the catastrophe when they had clear warning. What will be the verdict?

Open Thread

The monthly meeting of my spiritual directors peer group is this morning. I'll be away until after lunch. Use this as an open thread. Guest posters, the house is yours.

Retiring Diplomatically

Time to Bolt

Two months ago, we urged John Bolton to step aside to allow President Bush to appoint someone else as ambassador to the United Nations. With the Republican failure on Monday to gather enough Senate votes to force a vote on his nomination, Bolton would do his nation, and his president, a big favor by heeding our advice.

The brinksmanship over the Bolton nomination is one of those Washington battles that acquires a life of its own, until the principals step back and scratch their heads, wondering: "How did we get to this point?"

After all, in the halcyon days of the transition between the first and second Bush terms, the administration made it known that it wanted a kinder, gentler diplomacy. Incoming Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was applauded by the likes of this editorial page for choosing Robert B. Zoellick, a pragmatic negotiator, over Bolton, the indefatigable ideologue, as her deputy secretary.

Trouble is, Bush decided that the United Nations would be a pleasant, face-saving posting for Bolton, the influential neocon who served most recently as undersecretary of State for arms control. But as the disclosures emerged about Bolton's past bullying of subordinates and manipulation of intelligence, many senators rightly concluded that he is unfit to represent the U.S. in the world's premier multilateral forum.

So positions hardened in a capital primed to turn even minor squabbles into epic confrontations that no side can presumably afford to lose. What started as an effort to simply get Bolton out of the State Department has turned into a ridiculous fight between a president who claims Bolton is the indispensable reformer the U.N. needs, and Democrats who either argue that he is not qualified or want to see every last file on him before declaring him unqualified.

This page has argued that the Senate should abolish the filibuster, but it's unhealthy for America's representative at the U.N. to lack bipartisan support. A resigned Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist first indicated on Tuesday that he saw no way for the White House to prevail, other than by making Bolton a recess appointment, which would only compound the mess by sending to the U.N. an emissary who couldn't even get approved by his own government.

Later in the day, after meeting with the president, Frist changed his tune, saying Bush wanted a vote on the nomination. This sounds like we're in for more brinksmanship, maybe even the decisive showdown on the filibuster, all at a terrible cost to the nation's diplomacy. Unless, that is, Bolton calls a halt to the madness and beats a retreat to the conservative think tank of his choice.

Bolton is a former director of the Project for a New American Century and I imagine that they or the equally neocon American Enterprise Institute could find a desk and a salary for him.

Legacy

Here's something I didn't notice in .Liz Bumuller's Sunday story on the Supremes:

At the White House, the plan is to run the campaign for Mr. Bush's Supreme Court nominee out of the office of Harriet Miers, the low-profile White House counsel, once described by Mr. Bush as "a pit bull in Size 6 shoes." Ms. Miers will get a heavy assist from the Office of Legal Policy at the Department of Justice, where the attorney general, Alberto R. Gonzales, has himself been widely mentioned as a candidate for the Supreme Court, although probably not for the first vacancy under Mr. Bush.

In the meantime, Republicans close to the preparations say that the White House has assembled research on some 20 Supreme Court candidates, with more intensive research on a handful of the most mentioned, all federal appellate judges and all conservative: J. Michael Luttig and J. Harvie Wilkinson III of Virginia, Michael W. McConnell of Colorado, John G. Roberts Jr. of the District of Columbia, Samuel A. Alito Jr. of New Jersey and Emilio M. Garza of Texas.The White House also plans mock hearings in which the nominee will field aggressive questions from a "murder board," or a phalanx of lawyers and administration officials playing senators on the Judiciary Committee. Such hearings were conducted for Mr. Thomas and have even been conducted for some of the current administration's appellate court nominees, like Mr. McConnell.

The White House plans to name a point person to manage the process and to create an additional war room on Capitol Hill, in the office of Vice President Dick Cheney, Mr. Specter or Senator John Cornyn, a member of the Judiciary Committee and a Texas Republican. Mr. Cornyn's name was recently floated by conservatives as a long-shot possibility for the court; last week he said that it might be better for Mr. Bush to announce his nominee in September and not leave the person "hanging out like a piñata for people to take a whack at during the month we're in recess."

This all matches the talk I'm hearing, including the September appointment, which would push the Senate to shorten the confirmation process to get the nominee seated by the beginning of the October 3 beginning of the SCOTUS term.

So, no, don't expect a moderate and expect a bruising fight.

A Thoughtless War

War and Weakness

By RICHARD A. CLARKE
Published: June 19, 2005

Although official administration spokesmen have for some time been saying things like ''We have turned a corner in Iraq'' or ''We have broken the back of the insurgency'' or ''The insurgents are in a last-gasp campaign,'' the truth seems to be otherwise. A brief quiet followed the Iraqi election, but it has been broken by a sustained round of insurgent attacks. Iraqi civilian casualties in May were up by 33 percent over April, while Iraqi police deaths were up 75 percent over the same period. American military dead in Iraq more than doubled last month over the lull in March. Because the need for large numbers of troops there has remained much longer than originally planned (some reports suggest that Pentagon civilian planners anticipated a force of only 30,000 by 2004; we now have more than four times that number in Iraq), many of the active-duty Army units in Iraq are on their second deployments.

In addition to the thousands of American and Iraqi casualties, one victim of this slow bleeding in Iraq is the American military as an institution. Across America, the National Guard, designed to assist civil authorities in domestic crises (like the pandemic of a lethal avian flu that some public-health planners fear), is in tatters. Re-enlistments are down, training for domestic support missions is spotty at best, equipment is battered and many units are either in Iraq or on their way to or from it. Now the rot is beginning to spread into the regular Army. Recruiters are coming up dry, and some, under pressure to produce new troops, have reportedly been complicit in suspect applications.

The implications for the all-volunteer military are significant. With almost every unit in the Army on the conveyor belt into and out of Iraq, few units are really combat-ready for other missions. If the North Korean regime that is often called crazy were to roll its huge army the few kilometers into South Korea, significant American reinforcements would be a long time coming. This raises the possibility that the United States may have to resort to nuclear weapons to stop the North Koreans, as has been contemplated with increasing seriousness since the last Nuclear Posture Review in 2002.

The Army is already the smallest it has been since the Second World War. If the current trend in volunteering for the Army continues for long, the Pentagon may have to consider disbanding units or requesting the reinstatement of the draft. Most military experts consider either option to be a disaster for the Army as an institution, reducing its currently limited capabilities.

By the end of President Bush's term, the war in Iraq could end up costing $600 billion, more than six times what some administration officials had projected. Now the many other costs are also beginning to become clearer.

Maybe it is time to at least begin a public dialogue about ''staying the course.'' Opponents of an ''early'' departure of American forces say it would result in chaos in Iraq. Yet we already have chaos, and how sure can we be that sectarian fighting will not follow our departure whenever we leave? Is it unpatriotic to ask if the major reason for the fighting in Iraq is that we are still there?

It's time to go. We should never have been there in the first place, we have no strategy so we have no exit strategy.

None in the Streets

No One to Demonize

By Harold Meyerson

Wednesday, June 22, 2005; Page A21

In the absence of an antiwar movement, the American people have turned against the war in Iraq. Those two facts, I suspect, are connected.

There was a very real antiwar movement early on. In the months before, during and immediately after our invasion, hundreds of thousands of Americans took to the streets to oppose the intervention. Then chaos, followed by insurgency, enveloped Iraq, and the need for a constable to restore some order became indisputable. Those who had opposed the war -- this columnist included -- argued that the occupation would be less of a lightning rod if conducted by an international force under U.N. aegis. But the Bush administration insisted on U.S. control (a decision that grows less explicable with each passing day), and other nations with real armies made clear that they wanted no part of what was becoming a bloody occupation.

Confronted with a choice between U.S. occupation and chaos, millions of Americans -- chiefly liberals and Democrats -- who'd been against the war decided to give occupation a chance. In the streets, demonstrations dwindled; in Congress, Democrats (save for a handful) did not call for withdrawal. With unprecedented discipline, Democrats who had opposed the war lined up behind the candidacy of John Kerry, whose position on the war was muddled at best. The question of the occupation fell off the liberal agenda. At the Take Back America conference, a national gathering of liberals held this month, the issue barely came up at all.

In Iraq, however, the situation clarified. What had looked like a choice between occupation and mayhem was something even grimmer: The mayhem proceeds, and will proceed, occupation or no. It will doubtless grow worse if we pull up stakes, but our presence has failed to guarantee stability in politics or daily life. More than two years after Saddam Hussein's statue was toppled, the drive from downtown Baghdad to the airport is still a crapshoot with death.

Absent a discernible trajectory of progress, the American people are giving up on the occupation. In last week's CBS News/New York Times poll, 59 percent of respondents said the war was going badly, and just 37 percent approved of President Bush's handling of Iraq. A Gallup poll showed six in 10 Americans favoring full or partial withdrawal of U.S. forces.

These figures already match the polling in the middle and late years of the war in Vietnam -- even though that war was fought with vastly higher casualties and a conscript army. In a series of polls taken in November and December of 1969, the Gallup Organization found that 49 percent of Americans favored a withdrawal of U.S. forces and 78 percent believed that the Nixon administration's rate of withdrawal was "too slow." But there was one other crucial finding: 77 percent disapproved of the antiwar demonstrations, which were then at their height.

That disapproval was key to Nixon's political strategy. He didn't so much defend the war as attack its critics, making common cause with what he termed the "silent majority" against a mainstream movement with a large, raucous and sometimes senseless fringe. When Nixon won reelection in a landslide, it was clear that the strategy had worked -- and it has been fundamental Republican strategy ever since. Though the public sides with the Democrats on more key issues than it does with Republicans, it's Republicans who have won more elections, in good measure because the GOP has raised its ad hominem attacks on Democrats' character and patriotism to a science.

Which is why, however perverse this may sound, the absence of an antiwar movement is proving to be a huge political problem for the Bush administration, and why the Republicans are reduced to trying to turn Dick Durbin, who criticized our policies at Guantanamo Bay, into some enemy of the people. The administration has no one to demonize. With nobody blocking the troop trains, military recruitment is collapsing of its own accord. With nobody in the streets, the occupation is being judged on its own merits.

I doubt that this is the whole truth, but it is a piece of the larger picture.

Summer Salad

I have a brunch meeting in the morning so posting will be light until afternoon. Here is my contribution to the menu, a salad

For the record, for eight

Baby spinach leaves, 8 Oz
6 Oz blue cheese
4 Oz walnuts crumbled, do this with your hands, it is far better than chopping

Toss with an excellent vinaigrette

2 tblsp apple cider vinegar
1/4 cup olive oil
2 cloves of garlic, minced
2 tblsp water
1/3 tsp fresh oregano
1/3 tsp fresh basil

Much Freshly Ground black pepper
A grind of salt.

Combine the spinach, cheese and walnuts. Chop the herbs finely and add to the oil and vinegar and shake in a covered container and let sit for several hours in the fridge. Dress the greens with the dressing and toss well. There should be no slick on the bottom of the salad bowl. Offer sea salt and ground black pepper to each diner.

Growing Threat: A Modest Proposal

This is a coda to Melanie's Growing Threat article which was posted earlier today.

Modest Proposal

A more-than-viable option is to run Linux, behind a proper firewall.

99.9999% of the virus and spyware threats out there, modulo tracking cookies, are aimed at the Windows platform specifically, and get no traction at all on other operating systems. A Windows .exe *cannot* run on a Linux system unless a Windows emulator such as WINE is up. And even then, it's sandboxed.

This is not simply because Windows is more prevalent. The security model Linux is built upon, while less than perfect, is far and away better than the security model used for Windows, in many, many ways.

Both SuSE and Mandrake ship with the default graphical user interface set to KDE. This is a highly mature and intuitive interface. Unless you elect to geek out, you need never ever deal with command line. I have found the GUI to be at least as intuitive as Windows.

Online documentation is miles better than what Windows has or is ever likely to have.

If you have data on NTFS formatted disks, recent versions of both Mandrake and SuSE can mount these and manage data just as if you were using Windows.

OpenOffice has developed to the point where it is truly compatible with MSOffice. The 2.0beta version ships with SuSE 9.3, which, in my humble opinion, is a good place to start. In case you are wondering about ease of use or backward compatibility with MSOffice, this has already been studied. As the Slashdot link will explain, OpenOffice is the clear winner. Schools are dumping MSOffice in favor of OpenOffice, retaining MSOffice only when middleware requires it.

Both SuSE and Mandrake ship with a vast plethora of tools and tool alternatives. Load everything and you're going to put a strain on an 18 GB system disk.

Another nice thing. Tools to both harden the OS against intrusion and perform network security audits of other systems in your trusted network ship with most versions of Linux, and specifically with Mandrake and SuSE. I'm not guessing. I've used both, recently.

If you feel in the least bit uneasy with the normal levels of security built into the original OS, the SELinux (Security Enhanced Linux) patches are now incorporated into vanilla kernels at version 2.6 and higher. SELinux is what the NSA thinks Linux should look like. Amazingly enough, considering the NSA is part of the intelligence community, these enhancements were developed completely within the Open Source Linux tradition. Hence, independent source code review is not only possible, but has been performed multiple times. Forget about your kernel "calling home" to Langley. Ain't gonna happen. SELinux: NSA's Open Source Security Enhanced Linux willl brief you on it's ins and outs.

Both Mandrake and SuSE will offer to set up a strong default "iptables" firewall at install time. I should add that this firewall is lightyears stronger than Windows Internet Connection Firewall will ever be. Forget "ipfilter", which also ships. It's not nearly as strong.

For those who both want to tweak the configuration and do not want to deal with the iptables command language, may I introduce the Firewall Builder GUI. You don't need to compile diddly. Just go to the download page, download the proper rpms for your version, install using the GUI, and you should be good.

Note to the geek-challenged: Stick with something intuitive. I keep mentioning SuSE and Mandrake because those are my picks, both for ease of installation and ease of use, in that order. Mess with Debian or Gentoo and you'll likely go nuts.

Linux Security Caveat

Every Linux that ever shipped is set up to provide multiple network services, like http (web server), smtp (mail server), ftpd (ftp server), etc. Every single one of these services is a security vulnerability, and if you intend your system for client use only, like most of us do, just turn them off. No worries, Bastille Linux ships with both Mandrake and SuSE, and will walk you through this, and many other "hardening" steps to help protect your system. Nothing like this exists in the MS world.

Better Firewall

If you want a stronger firewall between your trusted network and the Internet, allow me to introduce OpenBSD. If you don't want to delve into the fiddlin' details of the pf command language, the Firewall Builder GUI works just as well in an OpenBD/pf environment as it does with Linux. Note. OpenBSD is the only general purpose OS out there with a secure default install.

There are books that can walk you through installation and configuration. I will list them in the order of my recommendation.

Absolute OpenBSD: UNIX for the Practical Paranoid, Michael Lucas. This is the best book on the market for a newbie who just wants to get a home/small business OpenBSD firewall up, soonest. The Appendices are priceless; they decipher all the cryptic device drivers that are the legacy of all the BSDs. The native (and oh, so strong) pf firewall is covered in more than adequate detail. Here is the errata page.

Building Firewalls with OpenBSD and PF, 2nd Edition, Jacek Artymiak. This book will tell you absolutely everything you will ever want to know about building OpenBSD firewalls. It will tell you curst little else, past the install. It seems to be aimed at folks trying to protect the enterprise.

Secure Architectures with OpenBSD, Brandon Palmer, Jose Nazario. This is a good book for someone who wants to install a web server or a DNS server or somesuch on an OpenBSD box. A good book for a general OpenBSD system administrator. A poor book for everyone else. The firewall command language is not covered as well as in the previous two offerings.

You have choices

My basic point: You have choices, even if you are not a complete geek. And when you migrate to one of these choices, your virus/spyware worries go bye-bye.

Peace does not make good video

I'm convinced that is why the media supported the war. For cool pictures of stuff blowing up.

And the Administration paid them well, with the embedded reporting opportunities.

Why was Monica big news? Because it was an excellent excuse to present porn (lame porn, but porn nonetheless) as news. An excuse to use the words "oral sex" pretty much every day for a couple of years.

Why all the stories about pretty white women being kidnapped? Because pretty white women look good on screen.

The old "if it bleeds it leads" rule doesn't exactly translate to video. But a similar one does. It all comes down to the visual. A story that comes with good video, or good video opportunity, will always beat one without, regardless of the relative significance of the stories.

The only exception seems to be protests. Those should get more coverage based on visual interest. But then, crowds are kind of boring to look at, and the production values of street theater maybe aren't up to broadcast standards.

Pushing Buttons

Frist Reverses Himself, Pushes Bolton Vote

By LIZ SIDOTI
The Associated Press
Tuesday, June 21, 2005; 2:30 PM

WASHINGTON -- Reversing field after a meeting with President Bush, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said he will continue pushing for a floor vote on John R. Bolton for U.N. ambassador. Frist switched his position after initially saying Tuesday that negotiations with Democrats to get a vote on Bolton had been exhausted.

Talking to reporters in the White House driveway after he joined other GOP lawmakers for a luncheon with Bush, Frist said: "The president made it very clear that he expects an up or down vote."

Just about two hours hour earlier, Frist said he wouldn't schedule another vote on Bolton's nomination and said that Bush must decide the next move. Frist, R-Tenn., had said there was nothing further he could do to break a Democratic stalemate with the Bush White House over Bolton, an outspoken conservative who, opponents argue, would undermine U.S. interests at the world body.

But he changed his tune after talking to Bush.

Frist's abrupt public turnabout underscored the political pressures that the long-running battle over Bolton have heaped upon himself and Bush.

Six months into his final term in office, Bush is struggling to avoid the perception of a weakened lame duck at a time when his proposal for revamping Social Security has made little progress and some lawmakers are calling for troop withdrawals from Iraq. Frist has lost control of the Republican-run Senate in recent weeks in fights over Bush's judicial appointments and earlier attempts to confirm Bolton.

Describing his talk with Bush, Frist said: "The decision in talking to the president is that he strongly supports John Bolton, as we know, and he asked that we to continue to work. And we'll continue to work."

"It's not dead," he said. "It is going to require some continued talking and discussion."

It's dead, and I'll bet Frist is pissed to have to perform this public walkback. The Imperial Presidency continues, but Bush doesn't realize that this isn't the way you keep your people happy. You can damn well be sure that this behavior has been duly noted by the rest of the caucus.

UPDATE: I don't know if any of the bloggers have made this plain yet. John R. Bolton was listed as a director of the Project for a New American Century, the neocon think tank, in the year 2000.

UPDATE 2: Welcome AOL blogchannel readers! The top of the site link will take you to more recent posts. We have range here, and some experts. Hang around a bit and enjoy.

Denying Reality

How Cheney Fooled Himself

By E. J. Dionne Jr.

Tuesday, June 21, 2005; Page A21

The assertion of the "Downing Street Memo" that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" of invasion has understandably become a rallying point for the war's opponents. But in some ways more devastating are other recently disclosed documents in which British officials warned that "there was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action." The British worried at the time that "U.S. military plans are virtually silent" on the fact that "a postwar occupation of Iraq could lead to a protracted and costly nation-building exercise."

The most damaging document supporting this claim is not secret, and remains one of the most important artifacts of the prewar debate. It is the transcript of "Meet the Press" from March 16, 2003, in which Vice President Cheney gave voice to the administration's optimistic assumptions that have now been laid low by reality.

Host Tim Russert asked whether "we would have to have several hundred thousand troops there" in Iraq "for several years in order to maintain stability." Cheney replied: "I disagree." He wouldn't say how many troops were needed, but he added that "to suggest that we need several hundred thousand troops there after military operations cease, after the conflict ends, I don't think is accurate. I think that's an overstatement."

Russert asked: "If your analysis is not correct, and we're not treated as liberators but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?"

Cheney would have none of it. "Well, I don't think it's likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators. I've talked with a lot of Iraqis in the last several months myself, had them to the White House. . . . The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want [is to] get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that."

Russert: "And you are convinced the Kurds, the Sunnis, the Shiites will come together in a democracy?"

Cheney: "They have so far." And the vice president concluded: "I think the prospects of being able to achieve this kind of success, if you will, from a political standpoint, are probably better than they would be for virtually any other country and under similar circumstances in that part of the world."

Was Cheney disguising the war's costs for political purposes? It's more likely that he believed every word he said. That suggests that the administration was not misleading the American people nearly so much as it was misleading itself.

Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska says in the current issue of U.S. News & World Report that "the White House is completely disconnected from reality" and that "it's like they're just making it up as they go along." Unfortunately, the evidence of the past suggests that Hagel's acerbic formulation may be exactly right. Those who still see the invasion of Iraq as a noble mission don't need to protect the policy from the war's critics. They need to rescue it from its architects.

I think E.J. is onto something. Bushco is delusional to a point where doubting their sanity is not an illegitimate thing to do.

States' Rights

What Became of Federalism?
# The Bush White House has been favoring Washington over the states.

By John Yoo, John Yoo, a law professor at UC Berkeley and visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, served in the Justice Department from 2001 to 2003.

The recent Supreme Court decision invalidating California's medical marijuana law has come under fire — correctly — from both the left and the right for undermining federalism. But observers have missed the real culprit in the court's flagging interest in balancing federal and state powers: the Bush administration.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Sandra Day O'Connor explained the problem in their dissents. Granting Congress the authority to regulate small amounts of marijuana grown in a backyard — marijuana that is never sold and never crosses state lines — makes a mockery of the efforts of the Constitution's framers to place limits on federal powers.

"If Congress can regulate this … then it can regulate virtually anything," wrote Thomas, "and the federal government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers."

But why blame the Bush administration too? In the medical marijuana case, it was the Bush Justice Department that decided to defend use of the federal drug laws to suppress homegrown marijuana.

That decision followed many others that show the administration's lack of interest in the proper balance of powers between state and federal governments.

Consider its position on these issues:

• The right to die: Then-Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft ordered that federal laws prohibit Oregon doctors from prescribing lethal doses of controlled drugs to terminally ill patients. He threatened to revoke the federal licenses of doctors who followed the Oregon law allowing physician-assisted suicide. Lower federal courts blocked him, but the administration has pursued the case to the Supreme Court, which will review it this fall.

• The president's support for Congress' efforts to block the death of Terri Schiavo: Congress issued an extraordinary directive to the federal courts to intervene in the normal workings of family law, an area that has remained under the control of the states since the birth of the republic. Fortunately, in that case, the federal courts proved more mindful of federalism than Congress and refused.

• Gay marriage: Last year, in response to "activist judges and local officials" in Massachusetts and San Francisco, the president proposed a constitutional amendment defining marriage as only between a man and a woman. The "Family Marriage Amendment" would override state laws experimenting with gay marriage.

• The No Child Left Behind Act: This 2002 Bush law reduces state autonomy in education by imposing uniform testing requirements. It uses the threat of significant restructuring of school operations if districts do not meet federal standards, all in an area that has historically fallen under the control of states.

The best of intentions may be behind these measures, but they follow a dangerous constitutional strategy. Demanding rigid, one-size-fits-all nationwide rules counteracts the benefits of federalism, which calls for decentralized governance. Federalism allows states to compete for residents and businesses. Some will choose to live in California because they are willing to trade high taxes for strong environmental rules, while others may want to live in Massachusetts because of gay marriage.

Worse, imposing national rules in these areas suppresses the ability of states to serve as "laboratories of democracy." As Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis observed, "It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country."

This is one of those rare issues about which right and left will broadly agree, although for slightly different reasons.

However, I do think that Yoo's last point is bogus: people tend to live where they can find work rather than by shopping state laws.

Growing Threat

Black Market in Stolen Credit Card Data Thrives on Internet

By TOM ZELLER Jr.
Published: June 21, 2005

"Want drive fast cars?" asks an advertisement, in broken English, atop the Web site iaaca.com. "Want live in premium hotels? Want own beautiful girls? It's possible with dumps from Zo0mer." A "dump," in the blunt vernacular of a relentlessly flourishing online black market, is a credit card number. And what Zo0mer is peddling is stolen account information - name, billing address, phone - for Gold Visa cards and MasterCards at $100 apiece.

It is not clear whether any data stolen from CardSystems Solutions, the payment processor reported on Friday to have exposed 40 million credit card accounts to possible theft, has entered this black market. But law enforcement officials and security experts say it is a safe bet that the data will eventually be peddled at sites like iaaca.com - its very name a swaggering shorthand for International Association for the Advancement of Criminal Activity.

For despite years of security improvements and tougher, more coordinated law enforcement efforts, the information that criminals siphon - credit card and bank account numbers, and whole buckets of raw consumer information - is boldly hawked on the Internet. The data's value arises from its ready conversion into online purchases, counterfeit card manufacture, or more elaborate identity-theft schemes.

The online trade in credit card and bank account numbers, as well as other raw consumer information, is highly structured. There are buyers and sellers, intermediaries and even service industries. The players come from all over the world, but most of the Web sites where they meet are run from computer servers in the former Soviet Union, making them difficult to police.

Traders quickly earn titles, ratings and reputations for the quality of the goods they deliver - quality that also determines prices. And a wealth of institutional knowledge and shared wisdom is doled out to newcomers seeking entry into the market, like how to move payments and the best time of month to crack an account.

The Federal Trade Commission estimates that roughly 10 million Americans have their personal information pilfered and misused in some way or another every year, costing consumers $5 billion and businesses $48 billion annually.

"There's so much to this," said Jim Melnick, a former Russian affairs analyst for the Defense Intelligence Agency who is now the director of threat development at iDefense, a company in Reston, Va., that tracks cybercrime. "The story that needs to be told is the larger, long-term threat to the American financial industry. It's a cancer. It's not going to kill you now, but slowly, over time."

Identity theft may just be the thing that moves us back to a cash economy. Does anybody know how other countries are dealing with the problem?

You can make sure that you don't add to the problem by keeping your anti-virus and spyblock signatures current.

McCarthyism Redux

Republicans take aim at their small-screen enemies
By Rupert Cornwell in Washington

21 June 2005

Democrats are in uproar over what they see as a naked attempt by Republicans to impose more conservative views on American public television and radio channels, notable for their sober and serious BBC-style reporting and analysis, but regarded by the right as a bastion of the detested "liberal media".

The attack is two-pronged, financial and managerial. Last week a House committee voted to slash the budget of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), the supervisory agency for public television and radio, by 25 per cent, or $100m (£55m), to $300m.

Separately, Kenneth Tomlinson, the CPB chairman and a Republican, is said to be rushing through the appointment of Patricia Harrison as president and chief executive. Ms Harrison, a senior official at the State Department, has no broadcasting experience. She was however once co-chairwoman of the Republican National Committee.

The Republican-dominated CPB board was scheduled to discuss the appointment yesterday, but every indication was that Ms Harrison would be chosen.

In a sign of Democratic unease, three leading senators ­ among them Hillary Clinton ­ have sent a letter to Mr Tomlinson urging a delay. The letter spoke of "serious concerns" about reports that Mr Tomlinson was interfering in the running of CPB, which distributes federal funding for public broadcasting, and which was set up to be a buffer that kept the politicians at a safe distance.

But at a time when Republicans control the White House as well as both chambers on Capitol Hill, such niceties count for little. Mr Tomlinson himself is on the record as wanting "to restore objectivity and balance" in programming ­ a thinly veiled complaint about public broadcasting's alleged liberal slant ­ which supporters see as a threat to its prized independence.

"Public media is now under attack ... by the right-wing media and their allies at the CPB," said Bill Moyers, the recently departed presenter of the NOW programme, a special bugbear of conservatives.

Under its new host, NOW has been slashed from an hour to 30 minutes in length, while a new talk show, featuring arch conservatives from The Wall Street Journal's editorial pages, has been added.

In other controversial moves Mr Tomlinson has enlisted a former White House aide to keep an eye on two ombudsmen recently installed to monitor the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) and National Public Radio (NPR). Last week, it emerged that CPB last year paid some $15,000 to two Republican lobbyists, payments that were not revealed to the full board.

There are days when I feel like the best I can do is to simply document the outrages as we slide back into the Middle Ages. Do not stop at the Renaissance or the Enlightenment, do not collect $200.

Flimsy

A Flicker Away From a Blackout
Canadian Engineers Say Rare Glitch Suggests Ongoing Threat to Power Grid

By Doug Struck
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, June 21, 2005; Page A15

TORONTO -- At 4:15 p.m. on May 27, the lights flickered across Ontario.

Subway cars in Toronto rolled to a stop while safety signals were reset. Pizza oven doors flew open on the ground floor of the city's landmark CN Tower. Cement and steel plants paused while machinery was restarted. Tens of thousands of computers automatically shut down and rebooted.

Hydro One, the Toronto-based electric utility, quickly issued a press statement seeking to reassure the public that the utility's "equipment protection worked as designed to isolate the fault."

In fact, the situation was much more tenuous. The power blip involved an extremely rare, still unexplained failure of two protection systems, according to internal documents of the utility, reports to oversight agencies and eight engineers. The eight are part of a group that has been on strike since June 6. By their accounts, the failure brought the region's power grid to the verge of a blackout like the one that struck on Aug. 14, 2003, plunging 50 million people in the United States and Canada into darkness.

"It was very bizarre, very disconcerting. And we may have a major problem on our hands," said engineer Aaron Cooperberg.

He and other engineers said that because they are striking, the precise cause of the malfunction has not been identified, and they say it could happen again. "Fundamentally, we had a very close call, and we don't know why," said another engineer, one of three who asked not to be identified, saying they feared retaliation by the company.

The electrical grid handled by Hydro One, which has 17,000 miles of high-power electric transmission lines throughout Ontario, managed the blip "very well," said Peter Gregg, vice president for corporate communications at the utility. Much of its cause is still not understood and under investigation, he said, and "we continue to be disappointed with the striking staff who seem to want to scaremonger on this incident."

Striking engineers said they were not seeking to pressure the company as part of their labor dispute. They said they were speaking out because they were worried that a threat remains to a power system they care about. "We're not pointing fingers," said one. "This isn't about a strike. It's about reliability of the system."

The May 27 incident set power generators in New York, Massachusetts, New Brunswick and Ontario swinging in wild oscillation, fighting one another to try to cope, according to official reports filed with oversight authorities in Canada and the United States.

Think about this: we are only seconds away from another east coast blackout on any given day. Nothing has been done to update this critical infrastructure in years, despite the increases in demands. This will be so fun in the middle of a pandemic flu.

Hand Me Downs

Some Politics May Be Etched in the Genes

By BENEDICT CAREY
Published: June 21, 2005

Political scientists have long held that people's upbringing and experience determine their political views. A child raised on peace protests and Bush-loathing generally tracks left as an adult, unless derailed by some powerful life experience. One reared on tax protests and a hatred of Kennedys usually lists to the right.

But on the basis of a new study, a team of political scientists is arguing that people's gut-level reaction to issues like the death penalty, taxes and abortion is strongly influenced by genetic inheritance. The new research builds on a series of studies that indicate that people's general approach to social issues - more conservative or more progressive - is influenced by genes.

Environmental influences like upbringing, the study suggests, play a more central role in party affiliation as a Democrat or Republican, much as they do in affiliation with a sports team.

The report, which appears in the current issue of The American Political Science Review, the profession's premier journal, uses genetics to help answer several open questions in political science.

They include why some people defect from the party in which they were raised and why some political campaigns, like the 2004 presidential election, turn into verbal blood sport, though polls find little disparity in most Americans' views on specific issues like gun control and affirmative action.

The study is the first on genetics to appear in the journal. "I thought here's something new and different by respected political scholars that many political scientists never saw before in their lives," said Dr. Lee Sigelman, editor of the journal and a professor of political science at George Washington University.

Dr. Sigelman said that in many fields the findings "would create nothing more than a large yawn," but that "in ours, maybe people will storm the barricades."

Geneticists who study behavior and personality have known for 30 years that genes play a large role in people's instinctive emotional responses to certain issues, their social temperament.

It is not that opinions on specific issues are written into a person's DNA. Rather, genes prime people to respond cautiously or openly to the mores of a social group.

Only recently have researchers begun to examine how these predispositions, in combination with childhood and later life experiences, shape political behavior.

I'm guessing that this makes me a throwback to some earlier generation (one I never met.) The rest of my family proudly describes itself as "somewhere to the right of Atilla the Hun." I'm significantly more political, more liberal and more religious than they are. Perhaps my mother is right and they did find me under a cabbage leaf.

TSA Data Base

Jun 20, 3:24 PM EDT

AP: Feds Collect Data on Air Travelers

By LESLIE MILLER
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A federal agency collected extensive personal information about airline passengers although Congress told it not to and it said it wouldn't, according to documents obtained Monday by The Associated Press.

A Transportation Security Administration contractor used three data brokers to collect detailed information about U.S. citizens who flew on commercial airlines in June 2004 in order to test a terrorist screening program called Secure Flight, according to documents that will be published in the Federal Register this week.

The TSA had ordered the airlines to turn over data on those passengers, called passenger name records, in November.

The contractor, EagleForce Associates, then combined the passenger name records with commercial data from three contractors that included first, last and middle names, home address and phone number, birthdate, name suffix, second surname, spouse first name, gender, second address, third address, ZIP code and latitude and longitude of address.

EagleForce then produced CD-ROMS containing the information "and provided those CD-ROMS to TSA for use in watch list match testing," the documents said.

According to previous official notices, TSA had said it would not store commercial data about airline passengers.

The Privacy Act of 1974 prohibits the government from keeping a secret database.

"I'm just floored," said Tim Sparapani, a privacy lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union. "This is like creating an FBI file, not just some simple check, and then they're storing the data."

This is shocking and alarming. Given the amount of personal data that's been hacked or accidentally released over the last month (ChoicePoint and others) and the fact that the government's networks are a long way from secure, this is truly upsetting. The data base and the CD-ROMs should be destroyed immediately.

The Dark Side

Robert Seltzer: WWJDD? Or 'What Would James Dobson Do?'

Web Posted: 06/19/2005 12:00 AM CDT

San Antonio Express-News

It is happening in churches, too. Remember when pastors used to preach tolerance, when their sermons exhorted us to reach out, to embrace people of different races and cultures? Now the message is not What Would Jesus Do, but What Would James Dobson Do.

The proselytizers — to call them preachers is to besmirch the calling — have invaded the political arena. There is nothing wrong with that; if they see social wrongs, religious officials should lobby politicians to right them. But in doing so, they should not condemn their enemies, those who do not follow in righteous lock step, as heathens.

Yet that is precisely what the zealots are doing. Consider the firestorm over judicial nominations. Long before the compromise bemoaned by the religious right, Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, helped stage a rally to support President Bush's nominees. The sponsors called it "Justice Sunday: Stopping the Filibuster Against People of Faith," as if their opponents were soldiers summoned by Satan.

The vitriol would be comical — if it were not so hateful and destructive. After Newsweek reported the desecration of the Koran at Guantanamo Bay — a report it later retracted — a preacher seemed disappointed that the allegation proved false. He put up a sign in front of his church, the Danieltown Baptist Church in Forest City, N.C. It stated: "The Koran needs to be flushed."

This kind of nonsense damaged the preacher, the Rev. Creighton Lovelace, more than it did his targets. He may not have realized it, but sometimes perpetrators are victims — victims of their own hostility and ignorance. By cloaking himself in righteousness, he stripped himself of dignity.

To his credit, Lovelace took down the sign a few days later, saying he realized it was offensive. He apologized to the Muslim community for his actions. One hopes that his brothers and sisters in the current political/religious battles will be similarly enlightened.

Seltzer is a lousy student of history. Religion in American has always been hellfire and brimstone. Read Jonathan Edwards' "Sinners in the hands of an angry God."

Another Incrementalist

Ronald Brownstein:
Washington Outlook
U.S. Healthcare Problem Too Big for Employers and Workers
Like a patient ignoring an ominous lump, Washington has spent years hiding from America's healthcare crisis. Now we'll soon learn whether President Bush and Congress will pay attention even if they are hit, so to speak, by a truck.

General Motors Corp. and the United Auto Workers are barreling toward an explosive collision over the company's effort to shift more of its crushing healthcare burden to its unionized workers.

GM is seeking concessions by the end of June, but union officials say they won't change their labor contract before it expires in 2007.

With many Americans already unnerved by persistent trade deficits, airline pension defaults and GM's recent announcement of 25,000 layoffs, the political and economic consequences could be profound if the GM-union conflict escalates into a strike or lockout. Self-preservation alone might encourage a president and a Congress with sinking approval ratings to confront the underlying healthcare problems fueling this dispute with even a fraction of the concern that they mustered for the treatment of a single Florida woman, Terri Schiavo.

To put it mildly, exploding healthcare costs present a more tangible problem for many more Americans than right-to-die cases. Since 2000, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation's authoritative survey, healthcare premiums for family coverage have increased by 59%, six times faster than inflation.

Higher costs, which encourage employers to drop coverage and discourage employees from purchasing it when offered, are swelling the number of uninsured. Meanwhile, managers and workers in companies that still provide coverage are facing no-win disputes over how to split escalating bills.

That tension triggered the bitter four-month grocery strike settled last winter in Southern California. Now, the same fuse is igniting the confrontation between GM and the UAW.

The company's fundamental problem is that it has not designed enough cars that consumers like. But there's no question that unsustainable healthcare bills are compounding its distress.

In 1996, GM spent $3 billion to provide healthcare to 1.2 million workers, retirees and family members. This year, it expects to spend $5.6 billion to cover 1.1 million people. That means GM's per-person expenditures for healthcare have doubled (from $2,500 to nearly $5,100) in less than a decade. GM now spends more than $1,500 on healthcare for each car it produces. That's more than it spends on steel.

More importantly, that's also significantly more than its key foreign competitors spend on healthcare. GM officials estimate that healthcare costs for Toyota are only about one-fourth as much per car, largely because the government pays more of the tab in Japan than in the U.S.

This is a problem too big for GM and its workers to resolve alone. Whether or not they negotiate a new formula for dividing healthcare costs, the prognosis is for perpetual conflict and economic strain unless the overall increase in medical costs is slowed. And that requires national action.

There's no silver bullet for controlling medical costs. The inability of even a massive consumer like GM, with its vast bargaining power, to hold down its bills belies the simplistic suggestions from Bush and conservative thinkers that transferring more of the cost to individuals will significantly reduce costs by making patients smarter consumers.

Instead, meaningful cost control requires a comprehensive agenda. One place to start would be by modernizing the healthcare industry's antiquated record-keeping and billing systems.

Brownstein is talking about re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. The only solution to this situation is single payer and everyone knows it. And we'll get it when GM, KPMG and other major Republican donors decide that it is in their best interests. We're almost there.

Turmoil

Original Sin

Someone Else's Child
By BOB HERBERT
Published: June 20, 2005

Last week's New York Times/CBS News Poll found that the mounting casualties and continuing turmoil in Iraq have made Americans increasingly pessimistic about the war. A majority said the U.S. should have stayed out of Iraq and only 37 percent approved of the president's handling of the war.

What hasn't changed is the fact that the vast majority of the parents who support the war do not want their children to fight it. A woman in the affluent New York suburb of Ridgewood, N.J., who has a daughter in high school and a younger son, said: "I would not want my children to go. If there wasn't a war it would be different. I support the war and I think we need to be there. But it's not going well. It's becoming like Vietnam. It's a very bad situation. But we can't leave."

I don't know how you win a war that your country doesn't want to fight. We sent too few troops into Iraq in the first place and the number of warm bodies available for Iraq and other military missions going forward is dwindling alarmingly. The Bush crowd may be bellicose, but for most Americans the biggest contribution to the war effort is a bumper sticker that says "support our troops," and maybe a belligerent call to a talk radio station.

The home-front "warriors" who find it so easy to give the thumbs up to war endanger the truly valorous men and women who are actually willing to put on a uniform, pick up a weapon and place their lives on the line.

The president and these home-front warriors got us into this war and now they don't know how to get us out. Nor do they have a satisfactory answer to the important ethical question: how do you justify sending other people's children off to fight while keeping a cloak of protection around your own kids?

If the United States had a draft (for which there is no political sentiment), its warriors would be drawn from a much wider swath of the population, and political leaders would think much longer and harder before committing the country to war.

There was a time (I can remember it) when blatant selfishness wasn't something that one copped to quite so easily. It seems to be in vogue now.

Clobber Them

Defective Heart Devices Force Some Scary Medical Decisions
By BARRY MEIER

For Pam Alexson, the decision whether to have a potentially defective heart device removed and replaced was easy. Ms. Alexson, a former nurse in Rehoboth, Mass., who expects to undergo surgery tomorrow, has the same Guidant Corporation defibrillator that failed in a college student who died in March, as well as the same type of genetic heart disease that killed him.

But another heart patient with that Guidant unit, Douglas Parsons, said he was holding back, not because he did not want the device out, but because his history of infection pointed to a bigger risk from surgery .

"I feel like I'm stuck between a rock and a hard spot," said Mr. Parsons, a 62-year-old retired high school teacher in Oneonta, N.Y. "I would like to have it removed but I can't take that risk."

Can someone explain to me why this obviously criminal company hasn't been fined? They knew for three years that their gadgets fail (and kill people) and they didn't do anything about it? This makes me wonder why I pay taxes. Here is yet another thing we can thank the FDA for.

What's The Matter With Texas?

Never Steal a Turkey in Lubbock, and Other Tales of Texas Justice
# Racism, 'Tuff on Crime' judges and gutless politicians warp the system.

By Molly Ivins, Molly Ivins is the author, most recently, of "Who Let the Dogs In? Incredible Political Animals I Have Known" (Random House, 2004).

The U.S. Supreme Court rules yet again that another Texas case was wrongfully decided — this time because 19 of 20 blacks had been knocked off the jury pool — and I'm asked to explain what's wrong with criminal justice in Texas, in 750 words. Sure, no problem.

I don't like to be cynical, but one can get a little tired after a long time watching justice meted out in this state. The story doesn't change much, and nothing seems to get better. But for what it's worth, here's what's at the bottom of it.

(1) Racism. In 1998, James Byrd Jr. was dragged to death behind a pickup truck for being black in Jasper. Two of the three men responsible got the death penalty. This was not first time in Texas a white man was given the death penalty for killing a black man. It was the second.

(2) More racism. In 1999, about one-fifth of the adult black citizens of Tulia, population 5,000, were arrested and accused of cocaine dealing on the uncorroborated testimony of a bent narc and notorious liar. No one even stopped to ask how a town that size could support 46 cocaine dealers until a reporter from the Texas Observer showed up.

(3) We elect our prosecutors. There are 254 counties in Texas, nearly every one with its own elected district attorney. The way to get elected is to be "Tuff on Crime." The way to lose is to be "Soft on Crime." In the big cities — Houston, Dallas and San Antonio, among the 10 largest in the nation — we get the usual plead-out mill: perp's public defender advises him to cop to reduced charges, anything to avoid a trial.

But in the small towns and rural areas where heavy crime is rare, a D.A. has to whup on whoever gets caught. Sometime in the '80s, a guy in Lubbock stole 12 frozen turkeys. They were recovered, still frozen. Not only no damage, but no defrost. The guy bought 75 years, which works out to 6.3 years per bird. Don't steal a turkey in Lubbock.

(4) We elect our judges. Only way to get elected is to be Tuff on Crime. Only way to lose is to be Soft on Crime. In the Case of the Sleeping Lawyer, a guy on death row appealed on grounds his lawyer had slept through his trial, thus providing him with less than adequate counsel. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ruled that even though the lawyer slept through much of the trial, he didn't sleep during the important parts, so the conviction stood.

(5) An appeal process that isn't worth squat. If you're in, you can't get out. If you draw the death penalty in Texas, you effectively have 30 days to present new evidence. After that, you're toast. Doesn't matter if someone else confesses on Day 31. Doesn't even matter if you could provide DNA evidence proving it wasn't you. (The Legislature is still trying to fix that one.) Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas are of the opinion that actual innocence is not necessarily a bar to execution (Herrera vs. Collins). It took a near-miracle to get the Tulia drug defendants out.

(6) Gutless politicians. Texas runs the largest prison system on Earth. Texas executes the retarded, the insane and people who were children when they committed their crimes, until the Supreme Court stopped that only three months ago. Texas executes foreigners without notifying their home countries. Every poll shows Texans do not want to execute people in these categories. Politicians are afraid to stop it for fear someone will say they're Soft on Crime.

You've met Labrador retrievers brighter than some of the people we execute. We had a guy on the row who thought he was going to die because he couldn't read. He spent hours on his bunk trying to memorize the ABCs. Never could do it. We execute people easily as crazy as the one in Florida who spent years crawling around on all fours, barking, under the impression that he was a black dog in the seventh circle of hell. But I'm sure they understand right from wrong, and know why they're being punished. Arf.

(7) A bent system. For years Texas used an expert witness most people called "Dr. Death." Never saw a perp he couldn't guarantee would be a mortal menace for the rest of his days. Only one solution: Kill him. Just one little hitch: In many of those cases, Dr. Death never examined the accused, never talked to the accused, never got near the accused. He was reprimanded twice in the 1980s by the American Psychiatric Assn., then expelled from the group in 1995 because his evidence was found unethical and untrustworthy.

In another case, the Supremes threw out the death sentence because the psychologist said the perp was a danger on account of being Latino. Then there was the Houston police lab, so unbelievably sorry, sloppy and just plain maliciously wrong that the courts had to throw out a bunch of those cases too.

But please don't get the idea that just because a few of these errors were caught on long-shot appeals, justice actually works here. We know about so many more miscarriages it would make you vomit, and can't even guess at how many we don't know about.

I'm at 932 words and I haven't even gotten to the 5th Circuit, the parole board, why you can spend months in jail without ever seeing a lawyer …

Now remind me again why the state system is so superior to the federal....

Criminal

British bombing raids were illegal, says Foreign Office
Michael Smith

A SHARP increase in British and American bombing raids on Iraq in the run-up to war “to put pressure on the regime” was illegal under international law, according to leaked Foreign Office legal advice.

The advice was first provided to senior ministers in March 2002. Two months later RAF and USAF jets began “spikes of activity” designed to goad Saddam Hussein into retaliating and giving the allies a pretext for war.

The Foreign Office advice shows military action to pressurise the regime was “not consistent with” UN law, despite American claims that it was.

The decision to provoke the Iraqis emerged in leaked minutes of a meeting between Tony Blair and his most senior advisers - the so-called Downing Street memo published by The Sunday Times shortly before the general election.

Democratic congressmen claimed last week the evidence it contains is grounds for impeaching President George Bush.

Those at the meeting on July 23, 2002, included Blair, Geoff Hoon, then defence secretary, Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, and Sir Richard Dearlove, then chief of MI6. The minutes quote Hoon as saying that the US had begun spikes of activity to put pressure on the regime.

Ministry of Defence figures for bombs dropped by the RAF on southern Iraq, obtained by the Liberal Democrats through Commons written answers, show the RAF was as active in the bombing as the Americans and that the “spikes” began in May 2002.

However, the leaked Foreign Office legal advice, which was also appended to the Cabinet Office briefing paper for the July meeting, made it clear allied aircraft were legally entitled to patrol the no-fly zones over the north and south of Iraq only to deter attacks by Saddam’s forces on the Kurdish and Shia populations.

The allies had no power to use military force to put pressure of any kind on the regime.

The increased attacks on Iraqi installations, which senior US officers admitted were designed to “degrade” Iraqi air defences, began six months before the UN passed resolution 1441, which the allies claim authorised military action. The war finally started in March 2003.

You'll note that you aren't seeing this in the NYT, the WaPo or the LAT. The US isn't a party to the International Criminal Court agreement, but Blair, Howard and Hoon are subject to it and the Brits are sweating. As they should.

Backstabbing

New US move to spoil climate accord

Mark Townsend in New York
Sunday June 19, 2005
The Observer

Extraordinary efforts by the White House to scupper Britain's attempts to tackle global warming have been revealed in leaked US government documents obtained by The Observer.

These papers - part of the Bush administration's submission to the G8 action plan for Gleneagles next month - show how the United States, over the past two months, has been secretly undermining Tony Blair's proposals to tackle climate change.

The documents obtained by The Observer represent an attempt by the Bush administration to undermine completely the science of climate change and show that the US position has hardened during the G8 negotiations. They also reveal that the White House has withdrawn from a crucial United Nations commitment to stabilise greenhouse gas emissions.

The documents show that Washington officials:

· Removed all reference to the fact that climate change is a 'serious threat to human health and to ecosystems';

· Deleted any suggestion that global warming has already started;

· Expunged any suggestion that human activity was to blame for climate change.

Among the sentences removed was the following: 'Unless urgent action is taken, there will be a growing risk of adverse effects on economic development, human health and the natural environment, and of irreversible long-term changes to our climate and oceans.'

Another section erased by the White House adds: 'Our world is warming. Climate change is a serious threat that has the potential to affect every part of the globe. And we know that ... mankind's activities are contributing to this warming. This is an issue we must address urgently.' The government's chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, has dismissed the leaking of draft communiques on the grounds that 'there is everything to play for at Gleneagles.' However, there is no doubt that many UK officials have become exasperated by the Bush administration's refusal to accept the basic principle that climate change is happening now and is due to man's activities.

Earlier this month, the senior science academies of the G8 nations, including the US National Academy of Science, issued a statement saying that evidence of climate change was clear enough to compel their leaders to take action. 'There is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring,' they said.

It is now clear that this advice has been completely ignored by Bush and his advisers. 'Every year, it (local air pollution) causes millions of premature deaths, and suffering to millions more through respiratory disease,' reads another statement removed by Washington.

Washington also appears to be unsympathetic towards the plight of Africa, the other priority singled out by Blair for the G8 Summit in Gleneagles.

I wonder if Tony Blair is having any buyer's regret about his "friendship" with W?

The Eclipse of Liberalism

Brad DeLong has a superb review of a new biography of economist John Kenneth Galbraith in the current issue of Foreign Affairs . In it, he discusses the eclipse of Galbraith's influence on academic economics in terms of the decline of classical liberalism. In Brad's (correct, I think) judgement

Parker has an explanation -- a relatively convincing one -- for the retreat of Galbraith's politics. The story behind it is the Democratic establishment's loss of nerve. Too many party intellectuals and politicians drink cocktails on Martha's Vineyard, in Parker's view, and too few spend time on the shop floor learning what issues are important to those sweeping up or manning an assembly line or tending the convenience-store cash register from midnight to six a.m. Thus, the mass base of the Democratic Party has withered, and without a mass base Democratic politicians listen too much to their rich contributors and turn into Eisenhower Republicans -- people who are interested above all in balancing the budget. Galbraith, a committed social democrat, has wielded his pen and his tongue in an effort to halt this decades-long rightward drift. But he has failed: his allies are too few, and the loss of nerve among the party elite is too complete.

Parker also has an explanation -- also a relatively convincing one -- for the eclipse of Galbraith's economic thought. The story here is of the blindness of an academic establishment steeped in Paul Samuelson's Foundations of Economic Analysis. Economists, Parker believes, have sold their birthright for a tasteless pottage of mathematical models. As a result, they can say much about theory but little about reality. And they ignore Galbraith because he is a guilt-inducing reminder of how much broader and more relevant economics can be.

Brad expands on author Richard Parker's analysis by further noting what Parker has missed:

What has survived throughout is the American myth of rugged individualism, and it is this that Parker's political story neglects. The power of this myth has meant that the United States is not, and never will be, a European-style social democracy. People may come together for barn raisings, but America is still the land of upward mobility and opportunity, where the most common questions are, I've done it, so why haven't you? and Doesn't this social solidarity stuff mean that I've got to pull more than my share of the weight? In spirit, it is still a nation of upwardly mobile immigrants blessed with an abundance of resources (free land) and an absence of government constraints (free labor).

Galbraith would say, sardonically, that this national self-image is just another fraudulent piece of conventional wisdom -- nurtured by the delusional, who cannot see reality, and the rich, who see it all too well but know that such delusions make them richer and more powerful. And Galbraith would be more than half right. But this self-image is also a very powerful social fact, and this more than anything else explains his waning influence on U.S. politics. It is not that the Democratic establishment has lost its nerve or been seduced by law firms and lobbyists; it is that the old Horatio Alger myth has proved extraordinarily durable.

At the beginning of the twenty-first century, it has become clear who John Kenneth Galbraith really is: Sisyphus, constantly pushing the boulder of social-democratic enlightenment up the hill. But the hill, it turns out, is too steep, and Galbraith not mighty enough.

I think that Brad is onto something very powerful here for liberals to meditate on. Our task is to restate the political principals of classical liberalism into a society which self-delusionally believes in the myth of the self-made man.

Defying the CW

Where's Daddy?

By Richard Morin
Post
Sunday, June 19, 2005; B5

Psychologists Linda M. Fleming and David J. Tobin can't tell you where to look for today's fathers. But they do know where not to look: on the pages of modern books on child-rearing.

Forget those statistics showing that fathers are playing an ever-increasing role in the lives of their small children. Daddies who change diapers, cart the little one to the pediatrician or help cook for Baby Dearest rate barely a mention in the typical child-care book, Fleming and Tobin of Gannon University in Pennsylvania claim in an article for the journal Psychology of Men & Masculinity.

Instead, they found that recently published guides to raising babies, when they mentioned dads at all, typically perpetuated outdated stereotypes that portray fathers as being little more than what these researchers termed the "parenthetical parent."

To measure what child-raising experts were saying about dads, Tobin and Fleming identified every child-care book published in English during the 1990s that was still in print in 2001. Then they selected books that concentrated on general issues of child-rearing in children from birth to age 6. From the resulting list of 66 books they randomly selected 23 for analysis and scanned the pages of each into a computer.

Then they scrutinized each of the 56,379 paragraphs in these books, counted those that mentioned father's roles in child-rearing, and performed additional analyses to determine how dads were portrayed.

They found that only 4.2 percent of the paragraphs in these books referred to fathers -- and nearly a third of these references were negative. (Because references to mom were so numerous and the tallying so labor intensive, the researchers did not do specific tallies for the maternal side of the partnership.)

When they examined the accompanying photos and illustrations, women outnumbered men 3 to 1. Even when the paragraph referred to a "parent" or used some other gender-neutral term, the message often was clearly intended for mothers. "For example, when discussing stress management techniques for parents, suggestions would include going to the spa, getting one's nails done, or talking with a girlfriend," they wrote.

What these child-care mavens did write about dads was nearly as disturbing as the fact that they wrote so little, Fleming and Tobin found. "Fathers' roles were predominately ancillary to mother and often portrayed as voluntary and negotiable," they wrote, and perpetuated "outdated cultural expectations" of fatherhood (or the absence of any expectations at all). For example, they found that only two sentences in all of the books explicitly "referenced fathers and day-care concerns."

Sometimes the advice of the child-care authors seemed geared to offending both dads and moms.

One popular 1998 book reassured fathers that, "Yes, your wife does have some of the same characteristics as a crazy person during the postpartum period, but it's only temporary insanity."

Crazy, indeed.

Happy Fathers' Day to all the dads who ignored the "conventional wisdom" and took an active part in raising their kids, to all the single dads who raised their children alone and to all the husbands and fathers who took on child rearing as an equal opportunity project.

Sunday Sermonette

Can anyone explain to me why the LAT made Dennis Prager their official theologian? Click on the link at peril to your blood pressure.

Lies

Bush says US is in Iraq because of attacks on US

Sat Jun 18, 1:15 PM ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) -

President George W. Bush defended the war in
Iraq, telling Americans the United States was forced into war because of the September 11 terror strikes.

Bush also resisted calls for him to set a timetable for the return of thousands of US troops deployed in Iraq, saying Iraqis must be able to defend their own country before US soldiers can be pulled out.

"We went to war because we were attacked, and we are at war today because there are still people out there who want to harm our country and hurt our citizens," Bush said Saturday in his weekly radio address.

Bush began a public relations offensive to defend the war as his approval rating has dropped well below 50 percent with Americans expressing skepticism about the invasion.

The centerpiece of the campaign will be a speech on June 28, exactly one year after the US-led coalition officially handed over sovereignty to a hand-picked Iraqi provisional government.

"Some may disagree with my decision to remove
Saddam Hussein from power, but all of us can agree that the world's terrorists have now made Iraq a central front in the war on terror," said the president.

"These foreign terrorists violently oppose the rise of a free and democratic Iraq, because they know that when we replace despair and hatred with liberty and hope, they lose their recruiting grounds for terror," he argued.

"Our troops are fighting these terrorists in Iraq so you will not have to face them here at home."

Bush, who was to welcome Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari for his first visit to the White House on Friday, ruled out any hard and fast timetable for withdrawing the 130,000 US soldiers currently deployed in Iraq and made it clear that it will not be anytime soon.

Terrorists "know there is no room for them in a free and democratic Middle East, so the terrorists and insurgents are trying to get us to retreat," he said.

"Their goal is to get us to leave before Iraqis have had a chance to show the region what a government that is elected and truly accountable to its citizens can do for its people."

A June 13 USA Today poll showed that almost six of 10 Americans, 59 percent, want a full or partial pullout of US troops from Iraq.

In a New York Times/CBS News poll among 1,111 adults, Bush's approval rating dropped to 42 percent while 59 percent disapproved of his handling of Iraq.
....
This mission isn't easy, and it will not be accomplished overnight. We're fighting a ruthless enemy that relishes the killing of innocent men, women, and children," he said.

I guess American bombs are so much better at distinguishing between legitimate combatents (of which there would be exactly none if we hadn't invaded the country in the first place) and innocent men, women and children.

Now, remind me again what Iraq had to do with 9-11? Nothing? Oh.

SCOTUS Watch

Possible Court Nominees Pose a Quandary for Bush
A Conservative Anchor vs. an Ethnic First

By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, June 19, 2005; Page A01

President Bush's advisers are focusing their search for a new Supreme Court justice on a trio of candidates who could present the president with a choice that would help shape his legacy -- pick a reliable conservative to anchor the court for decades or go for history by naming the first Hispanic chief justice at the risk of alienating his base.

While the cancer-stricken Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist has not publicly signaled his decision, many in the White House and around Washington expect him to announce his retirement at the end of the court's current term next week, opening the nation's top judicial post for the first time in 19 years and setting up a potentially savage nomination battle.

White House officials have prepared for the prospect by culling long lists of possible candidates, poring through old cases and weighing a variety of factors from judicial philosophy to age. Bush and his inner circle have had tightly held deliberations and no one can say for sure whom he might pick for chief justice, but outside advisers to the White House believe the main candidates are federal appeals Judges John G. Roberts and J. Michael Luttig and possibly Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales.

For a time, many officials and analysts in Washington assumed that Gonzales, a longtime Bush confidant and his first-term White House counsel, had been ruled out as a candidate because he took over the Justice Department in February. But in recent days, several advisers with close ties to the White House said Bush appears to be considering Gonzales, after all.

If so, it sets up a delicate conundrum for Bush. A Gonzales appointment would be a politically appealing "first" that could ease the confirmation process among Democrats and help expand the Republican base, according to some strategists. But many conservative leaders see him as too moderate on issues such as abortion and affirmative action, and a Gonzales-for-Rehnquist trade would effectively move the court somewhat to the left.

"He's clearly in the running," said one adviser who, like others, shared insights on the condition of anonymity to preserve relations with the White House. "And that's an easy confirmation -- that's the easy confirmation."

While most Senate Democrats opposed Gonzales's confirmation as attorney general because of his involvement in setting guidelines for interrogations of detainees, he did get 60 votes, just enough to beat a filibuster. And the adviser said the White House senses that Democrats would not wage an all-out fight against his elevation to the court. "They've had their say on that," the adviser said.

Yet a Gonzales nomination could trigger internal dissension among GOP activists, some of whom have warned the White House against naming the attorney general. At a meeting of conservative groups last week to plot strategy for a possible Supreme Court nomination, one leader spoke out against a Gonzales appointment, according to people in the room.

"Some of the groups share that concern," said Jan LaRue, chief counsel for the Concerned Women for America, who attended the session. While she noted that her organization has not taken a position, she predicted that if Gonzales is chosen, some activists "may not as vigorously support" the nomination, while Roberts or Luttig "would certainly have broader support across the coalition of conservatives."

"Everyone in my circle crinkles their nose when his name comes up," another activist said of Gonzales. "It would be a disaster if that happened."

What this says to me: we're living in an American with two completely different sets of facts, not just opinions. If conservatives would have to crinkle up their noses to accept Al Gonzales, and liberals in the Senate would overwhelmingly vote for him out of relief, something very strange is going on in this country. The right has slipped so far to the right that they have abandoned common sense.

Al Gonzales is a conservative lawyer with no judicial experience. He wrote the memos that tolerated torture. That's enough for me to think he doesn't belong on the bench, but he is so less objectionable than Mike Luttig or John Roberts that I'd be willing to let his nomination go forward on the Hill. How crazy is that?

Litigation Report

Pummeled MP sues Pentagon
Soldier was impersonating unruly Guantanamo detainee in training

David Zucchino, Los Angeles Times

Saturday, June 18, 2005

A U.S. military policeman who was beaten by fellow MPs during a botched training drill at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, prison for detainees has sued the Pentagon for $15 million, alleging that the incident violated his constitutional rights.

Spec. Sean Baker, 38, was assaulted in January 2003 after he volunteered to wear an orange jumpsuit and portray an uncooperative detainee. Baker said the MPs, who were told that he was an unruly detainee who had assaulted an American sergeant, inflicted a beating that resulted in a traumatic brain injury.

Baker, a Persian Gulf War veteran who re-enlisted after the Sept. 11 terror attacks, was medically retired in April 2004. He said the assault had left him with seizures, blackouts, headaches, insomnia and psychological problems.

In the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Lexington, Ky., Baker demanded reinstatement in the Army in a position that would accommodate his medical disability. He said the Army put him on medical retirement against his wishes.

"Somebody has to step up to serve, and I still want to serve," Baker said Friday in a telephone interview from his home in Georgetown, Ky.

A Pentagon spokeswoman declined to comment, saying she had not seen the lawsuit and could not discuss pending litigation.

We first covered this story last June and wish Mr. Baker Godspeed with his suit.

What can we do?

via Common Dreams

We Are All Complicit - But What Can We Do About It?

Published on Saturday, June 18, 2005 by the Independent (UK)
by Robert Fisk

We are all complicit in these vile acts of torture - but what can we do about it? If our government uses information drained out of these creatures, it is we who are holding the whips.

I still have my notes from a man who knew all about torture, a Druze friend in the 1980s, during the Lebanese war, pleased with himself because he'd just caught two Christian militiamen trying to plant a car bomb on the Beirut seafront. "I saw two Phalangists over there. I knew who they were. They had a bomb in their car. I called the PSP [Walid Jumblatt's Progressive Socialist Party] and they took them off for questioning." What happened to them? "Well, they knew what would happen to them; they knew there was no hope. They were questioned here for a couple of days and then they were taken up to Beit Eddin."

Ah, Beit Eddin, one of the prettiest villages in Lebanon, the palace of the Emir Bashir the Second, site now of one of the country's finest music festivals - run by Jumblatt's glamorous wife Nora. But Beit Eddin was different in the 1980s. "The guys are always told that they are going to die, that there's no point in suffering - because they are going to be killed when they've talked," my Druze friend told me. "There's a center. They don't survive. There are people there who just press them until they talk. They put things into a man's anus until he screams. Boiling eggs, that sort of thing. They kill them in the end. It's only a few days and it's all over. I don't really like that sort of thing. I really don't. But what can I do?"

It's a good question again now. What can we do? What can we do when an American president dispatches "suspects" to third countries where they will be stripped, wired up, electrocuted, ripped open and tortured until they wish they had never been born? What can we do with a prime minister - ours - who believes that information from torture victims may be of use to us and may be collected by us? How can we clean our hands when we know that men are being subject to "rendition" through our own airports? Doesn't a policeman have the right to go aboard these CIA contract jets that touch down in Britain and take a look at the victim inside and - if he believes the man may be tortured - take him off the plane?

I started thinking about this more seriously in the beautiful little town of Listowel in Co Kerry - not far, by chance, from Shannon airport - where I went to give a talk at the recent writers' festival. I was handed a flyer by a bearded man in the audience. "Who was on board the CIA-chartered plane Reg No N313P that landed in Shannon on 15 December 2003 en route from Iraq?" it asks.

Now, a little fact-checking suggests that the Tralee anti-war group got the details right. And planes have also gone in the other direction - to Uzbekistan and Egypt and other countries where Geneva Conventions - already disregarded by the lads and lassies in charge of Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib - are used as lavatory paper. In Uzbekistan, they boil "suspects" in fat. They take out their nails. In Egypt, they whip prisoners and sometimes sodomize them. In one Egyptian prison complex a local human rights group found that guards forced prisoners to rape each other. But no friendly Garda walks up to find out who's aboard at Shannon. The Irish government will not investigate these sinister flights. Outside, Irish eyes may be smiling. But they won't be allowed a peek into these revolting aircraft.

It's not difficult to trace our journey to this perdition. First, we had Lord Blair of Kut al-Amara, who in November 2003 was ranting away at a joint press conference with George Bush, that "in the face of this terrorism, there must be no holding back, no compromise, no hesitation in confronting this menace". No holding back? In tandem with this drivel, we had writers such as David Brooks at the New York Times perniciously asking readers what would happen to "the national mood" when "the news programs start broadcasting images of brutal measures our own troops will (sic) have to adopt... The president will have to remind us that we live in a fallen world, that we have to take morally hazardous action..." Indeed.

Already there's an infamous case in Canada of a Syrian-born Canadian citizen who was transiting the United States, who was arrested and put on a plane to Damascus where he was duly tortured until the Syrians decided he had nothing to tell them. Then he came back to Canada - only to find that the Canadian authorities might have tipped off the US spooks that he was a wanted man. Now I'm quite an expert on Syrian torture. A beating is about the best you can expect. But there exists in one of their "mukhabarat" basements an instrument known as the German chair, installed long ago by the now defunct German Democratic Republic. The victim is strapped down and the back then moves inwards until the prisoner's spine is snapped. A home-made version - the Syrian chair - was nastier. It broke prisoners' backs more slowly.

And as we all know - and Saddam's torture boys were also experts at this - prisoners' families can be brought to prisons to be beaten, raped and sodomized if the inmate still refuses to talk. With all this are we now complicit. As long as we send men off to this physical hell, we have the electrodes in our hands; we are the torturers. As long as our government accepts information drained out of these emasculated creatures, it is we who are pulling out the fingernails; it is we who are holding the whips.

We are paying for this. Our tax dollars are paying for this. How long will we allow this? Is this the country we have become?

Ender's Game

By Mortimer B. Zuckerman: A Nightmare Scenario

What is a pandemic? There are three elements. First, a virus emerges from the pool of animal life that has never infected human beings and is therefore one to which no person has antibodies. Second, the virus has to make us seriously ill. Third, it must be capable of moving swiftly from human to human through coughing, sneezing, or just a handshake. For avian flu, the first two elements are already with us. Well over half the people who have contracted it have died. The question now is whether the virus will meet the third condition, of mutating so that it can spread rapidly from human to human.

Tipping point. It has already moved from chickens to birds to pigs. The latter often serve as a vessel for mixing human and animal viruses because the receptors on the respiratory cells of pigs are similar to those of humans. This illustrates the dangers we face, because this mixture of bird flu and human flu, in either an animal or a person, could cause the viruses to exchange genetic materials and create an entirely new viral strain capable of sustaining efficient human-to-human transmission. This would be the tipping point to a pandemic.

At this point, nobody knows just how close we might be to such a crisis. Experts are alarmed, however, because we are singularly ill prepared. Worldwide, we currently produce only about 300 million doses of flu vaccine a year to serve over 6 billion people. A pandemic that began in Asia could race around the globe in days or weeks, given the number of airliners crisscrossing the oceans from Tokyo, Vietnam, and Indonesia to New York, Los Angeles, and London.

What should we be doing? A whole lot more. First: We need operational blueprints to get various populations through one to three years of a pandemic. We must coordinate the responses of the medical community, of food providers, of transportation, and of care for first responders from public health, law enforcement, and emergency management at the international, federal, state, and local levels. Second: We must strengthen the World Health Organization so that it can be an accurate clearinghouse of information about the scope and location of the disease, should it begin to spread, and quell false rumors that could lead to global panic. Third: We must track the human cases already documented so as to gain the very earliest warning of any transformation of the disease, and thus of an emerging pandemic. Days would be critical. Fourth: The Bush administration must think of this as terrorism to the nth degree and immediately set up a senior-level emergency task force to develop a strategy. It could serve as a permanent framework for curtailing the spread of future infectious diseases. Fifth: We must prioritize research money to develop a vaccine, expand the production of flu vaccine, and stockpile antiviral medications. It would be irresponsible to begrudge time and money. A pandemic could well bring global, national, and regional economies to an abrupt halt in a world that relies on the speed and distribution of so many products. A pandemic could lead many countries to impose useless but highly destructive quarantines that would disrupt trade, travel, and production--something that has never happened with AIDS, malaria, or tuberculosis. At home, many venues of human contact--schools, movie theaters, transportation hubs, and businesses--would have to be shuttered.

I'm not a big fan of Zuckerman, but he hits most of the right notes in this US News piece. Note to Mort, of your five recommendations in the last graf, we are doing exactly none of those things, and time might be drawing very short. We simply don't know, except the historical trends say that the time is right for another flu pandemic and the candidate bug kicking around out there is particularly nasty.

My last couple of posts on this subject have dealt with the economic costs of a pandemic. There will be costs for preparing for it, too. The costs of not preparing are so much higher. If we do undertake the costs of preparing for it, and it doesn't happen, we will have strengthened our infrastructure, particularly in public health and the public's awareness of public health issues. Immeasurably. If we don't we are leaving ourselves open to a disaster which could have had considerable mitigation. The scope of the human tragedy is not something I'm prepared to address.

End of Our Rope

An X-Ray Vision

Travelers are returning to the air this summer in numbers not seen since the 2001 terrorist attacks. Back as well are the flight delays that plague the nation's overburdened airports. But hey, look on the bright side: If you get to Los Angeles International Airport an hour ahead of time only to find that the security screening line snakes down the escalator, out the door and around the corner of the next terminal, you can always hope that your plane will arrive at the gate even later than you will.

Of course, the Law of Airport Probability dictates that, under such circumstances, your plane will be on time — just as it will be late on the day you arrive two hours early only to find no line whatsoever.

With all this waiting around, this may be the summer that passengers finally rebel against removing laptops from cases, surrendering nail clippers and shucking shoes, jackets and belts. Long lines, after all, do more than try patience. Studies by the Rand Corp., the Government Accountability Office and now the Department of Homeland Security point out that queues also make easy targets for terrorists with luggage bombs.

I sure hope to hell this is the summer. I recently had to catch a connecting flight at Atlanta's Hartsfield Airport and it was a freakin' nightmare. It also appears that I'm on some kind of government watch list: every flight I've taken in the last year, I've been pulled out at security for extra pat-down searches and had my pocket book gone through. This blog wouldn't have anything to do with that, would it?

Internet Activism

Representative Louise Slaughter (D-NY 28) is leading a petition drive to demand a Congressional audit in Iraq. We already know that more than 9 billion dollars are unaccounted for. With companies like Halliburton and Dyncorps getting multi-billion dollar no-bid contracts, there needs to be some accountability and the Pentagon doesn't seem to have the will to enforce it.

Just as we did with John Conyers petition last week, let's go and help her out.

This link will take you directly to her petition page. It only takes a minute to make a difference.

Digging In

Bush: 'Nothing less than victory' in Iraq

On radio, president says pulling troops out now is not an option
The Associated Press
Updated: 12:02 p.m. ET June 18, 2005

WASHINGTON - President Bush said Saturday that pulling out of Iraq now is not an option, rejecting calls by some lawmakers and polls indicating many Americans are growing weary of the war.

“The terrorists and insurgents are trying to get us to retreat. Their goal is to get us to leave before Iraqis have had a chance to show the region what a government that is elected and truly accountable to its citizens can do for its people,” Bush said in his weekly radio address.

“We will settle for nothing less than victory” over terrorists there, he said later.

Bush’s radio address is part of a series of appearances and speeches in the coming weeks aimed at countering poll ratings that are near their lowest levels on both the Iraq war and the economy. Bush said his administration is committed to success in both areas of concern for Americans.

About six in 10 in a Gallup poll taken in early June said the United States should withdraw some or all of its troops — the highest level of support for withdrawing U.S. troops since the war began.

(snip)

But it is the president’s Iraq policy that has taken the biggest slide in the polls. Once a mainstay of his public support, his handling of the Iraq war was backed by only 41 percent in an Associated Press-Ipsos poll this month — his lowest level of support yet on Iraq.

Bush acknowledged discontent over his decisions but signaled no shift in policy or timing for the American presence in Iraq.

“Some may disagree with my decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, but all of us can agree that the world’s terrorists have now made Iraq a central front in the war on terror,” he said. “This mission isn’t easy, and it will not be accomplished overnight.”

Calls for withdrawal timetable rejected

Amid continuing attacks and suicide bombings in Iraq, a few Republicans and Democrats — including one GOP lawmaker who voted for war in Iraq — introduced a resolution this week calling for Bush to begin withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq by Oct. 1, 2006. There have been nearly 1,100 violent deaths in Iraq linked to the insurgency since a transitional government took office seven weeks ago.

The administration insists no timetable can be set for bringing U.S. forces home from Iraq until enough Iraqi forces have been sufficiently trained to take over the fight against the insurgency. Anything else, the administration argues, would only embolden the insurgency.

The prelude to disaster. When Bush doesn't know what to do he "stays the course". That would be the course that is headed for the cliff.

The Invisible Dead

Out of President's Sight, Arlington's Rows of Grief Expand

By Dana Milbank

Saturday, June 18, 2005; Page A06

President Bush was in Minnesota yesterday talking about Medicare. The House was debating United Nations dues. And at Arlington National Cemetery, Army Spec. Louis E. Niedermeier of Largo, Fla., was being placed in Section 60, Grave 8188.

Sixteen days earlier in Ramadi, Iraq, according to his family, Niedermeier, a scout who pointed lasers to guide missiles to targets, was shot in the head by a sniper as he stepped from a Humvee. He was 20 years old.

Niedermeier, one of more than 1,700 American men and women who have died in Iraq, is the 144th to be laid to rest at Arlington. Arlington, just two miles from the White House, buries the Iraq dead at a rate of one or two a week.

But the nation's leaders are missing these somber and patriotic pageants. Members of Congress rarely attend. Top Pentagon officials do so only occasionally. And President Bush has yet to bury a fallen warrior.

Niedermeier was an enlisted man. He was just a kid who worked at Best Buy and joined the military because of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, so he did not qualify for the military band and horse-drawn caisson that officers get. But even his modest ceremony merited six military pallbearers, a seven-member drill team, a bugler and an Army chaplain. "Today, we lay to rest another patriot," Chaplain Kenneth Kerr told mourners. "Our nation owes him a debt of gratitude."

On bended knee, Gen. Michael L. Combest handed a folded flag to the grieving mother, Denise Hoy. She accepted her son's Bronze Star, Purple Heart and Good Conduct medal. After the rounds were fired and taps was played, she turned, sobbing, to speak. "I am so proud of my son," she said.

Aides say Bush has not attended a military funeral because he does not want to favor one ultimate sacrifice over another. They point out that he meets frequently with wounded troops and relatives of the dead, and he has remembered fallen soldiers on Memorial Day and similar observances. "Their funerals are a time for their family and friends to mourn and remember their loved one in a private way," said Scott McClellan, White House press secretary.

This is a departure from past presidents' practices. President Jimmy Carter attended ceremonies for troops killed in the failed hostage-rescue mission in Iran. President Ronald Reagan attended a service for Marines killed in Beirut. President Clinton went to Andrews Air Force Base to see the coffins of Americans killed in a terrorist attack in Nairobi in 1998.

Bush's absence from funerals has kept them off the front pages, one of several administration policies that have minimized Americans' exposure to the costs of war. The Pentagon has cracked down on allowing photographs of flag-draped caskets as they arrive at military bases. And, late last year, the administration began enforcing restrictions that keep photographers and reporters some 50 yards from services.

There is still no memorial for the Iraq dead, but their rows in Section 60 show the signs of fresh grief and recent death. Thirteen graves are too new to have tombstones yet; green metal markers with photos of the fallen suffice. Four graves have been filled so recently that they do not even have sod yet, just newly packed earth.

Bushies are even spinning their war dead. Everything is for show with these people. Add this to the lists of criminal behavior.

We should get to see the results of what is done in our name.

Legal Poisoning

This is a stunner. Read the whole thing and then write your congresscritter.

Deadly immunity
When a study revealed that mercury in childhood vaccines may have caused autism in thousands of kids, the government rushed to conceal the data -- and to prevent parents from suing drug companies for their role in the epidemic.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

June 16, 2005 | In June 2000, a group of top government scientists and health officials gathered for a meeting at the isolated Simpsonwood conference center in Norcross, Ga. Convened by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the meeting was held at this Methodist retreat center, nestled in wooded farmland next to the Chattahoochee River, to ensure complete secrecy. The agency had issued no public announcement of the session -- only private invitations to 52 attendees. There were high-level officials from the CDC and the Food and Drug Administration, the top vaccine specialist from the World Health Organization in Geneva, and representatives of every major vaccine manufacturer, including GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Wyeth and Aventis Pasteur. All of the scientific data under discussion, CDC officials repeatedly reminded the participants, was strictly "embargoed." There would be no making photocopies of documents, no taking papers with them when they left.

The federal officials and industry representatives had assembled to discuss a disturbing new study that raised alarming questions about the safety of a host of common childhood vaccines administered to infants and young children. According to a CDC epidemiologist named Tom Verstraeten, who had analyzed the agency's massive database containing the medical records of 100,000 children, a mercury-based preservative in the vaccines -- thimerosal -- appeared to be responsible for a dramatic increase in autism and a host of other neurological disorders among children. "I was actually stunned by what I saw," Verstraeten told those assembled at Simpsonwood, citing the staggering number of earlier studies that indicate a link between thimerosal and speech delays, attention-deficit disorder, hyperactivity and autism. Since 1991, when the CDC and the FDA had recommended that three additional vaccines laced with the preservative be given to extremely young infants -- in one case, within hours of birth -- the estimated number of cases of autism had increased fifteenfold, from one in every 2,500 children to one in 166 children.
[0]

Even for scientists and doctors accustomed to confronting issues of life and death, the findings were frightening. "You can play with this all you want," Dr. Bill Weil, a consultant for the American Academy of Pediatrics, told the group. The results "are statistically significant." Dr. Richard Johnston, an immunologist and pediatrician from the University of Colorado whose grandson had been born early on the morning of the meeting's first day, was even more alarmed. "My gut feeling?" he said. "Forgive this personal comment -- I do not want my grandson to get a thimerosal-containing vaccine until we know better what is going on."

But instead of taking immediate steps to alert the public and rid the vaccine supply of thimerosal, the officials and executives at Simpsonwood spent most of the next two days discussing how to cover up the damaging data. According to transcripts obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, many at the meeting were concerned about how the damaging revelations about thimerosal would affect the vaccine industry's bottom line.

"We are in a bad position from the standpoint of defending any lawsuits," said Dr. Robert Brent, a pediatrician at the Alfred I. duPont Hospital for Children in Delaware. "This will be a resource to our very busy plaintiff attorneys in this country." Dr. Bob Chen, head of vaccine safety for the CDC, expressed relief that "given the sensitivity of the information, we have been able to keep it out of the hands of, let's say, less responsible hands." Dr. John Clements, vaccines advisor at the World Health Organization, declared flatly that the study "should not have been done at all" and warned that the results "will be taken by others and will be used in ways beyond the control of this group. The research results have to be handled."

In fact, the government has proved to be far more adept at handling the damage than at protecting children's health. The CDC paid the Institute of Medicine to conduct a new study to whitewash the risks of thimerosal, ordering researchers to "rule out" the chemical's link to autism. It withheld Verstraeten's findings, even though they had been slated for immediate publication, and told other scientists that his original data had been "lost" and could not be replicated. And to thwart the Freedom of Information Act, it handed its giant database of vaccine records over to a private company, declaring it off-limits to researchers. By the time Verstraeten finally published his study in 2003, he had gone to work for GlaxoSmithKline and reworked his data to bury the link between thimerosal and autism.

Vaccine manufacturers had already begun to phase thimerosal out of injections given to American infants -- but they continued to sell off their mercury-based supplies of vaccines until last year. The CDC and FDA gave them a hand, buying up the tainted vaccines for export to developing countries and allowing drug companies to continue using the preservative in some American vaccines -- including several pediatric flu shots as well as tetanus boosters routinely given to 11-year-olds.

The drug companies are also getting help from powerful lawmakers in Washington. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who has received $873,000 in contributions from the pharmaceutical industry, has been working to immunize vaccine makers from liability in 4,200 lawsuits that have been filed by the parents of injured children. On five separate occasions, Frist has tried to seal all of the government's vaccine-related documents -- including the Simpsonwood transcripts -- and shield Eli Lilly, the developer of thimerosal, from subpoenas. In 2002, the day after Frist quietly slipped a rider known as the "Eli Lilly Protection Act" into a homeland security bill, the company contributed $10,000 to his campaign and bought 5,000 copies of his book on bioterrorism. Congress repealed the measure in 2003 -- but earlier this year, Frist slipped another provision into an anti-terrorism bill that would deny compensation to children suffering from vaccine-related brain disorders. "The lawsuits are of such magnitude that they could put vaccine producers out of business and limit our capacity to deal with a biological attack by terrorists," says Andy Olsen, a legislative assistant to Frist.

Even many conservatives are shocked by the government's effort to cover up the dangers of thimerosal. Rep. Dan Burton, a Republican from Indiana, oversaw a three-year investigation of thimerosal after his grandson was diagnosed with autism. "Thimerosal used as a preservative in vaccines is directly related to the autism epidemic," his House Government Reform Committee concluded in its final report. "This epidemic in all probability may have been prevented or curtailed had the FDA not been asleep at the switch regarding a lack of safety data regarding injected thimerosal, a known neurotoxin." The FDA and other public-health agencies failed to act, the committee added, out of "institutional malfeasance for self protection" and "misplaced protectionism of the pharmaceutical industry."

I've been wondering about this for a while. Autism and Aspergers

Re-educating Big Bird

Official Had Aide Send Data to White House

By STEPHEN LABATON
Published: June 18, 2005

WASHINGTON, June 17 - E-mail messages obtained by investigators at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting show that its chairman, Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, extensively consulted a White House official shortly before she joined the corporation about creating an ombudsman's office to monitor the balance and objectivity of public television and radio programs.

Mr. Tomlinson said in an interview three months ago that he did not think he had instructed a subordinate to send material on the ombudsman project to Mary C. Andrews at her White House office in her final days as director of global communications, a political appointment.

But the e-mail messages show that a month before the interview, he directed Kathleen Cox, then president of the corporation, to send material to Ms. Andrews at her White House e-mail address. They show that Ms. Andrews worked on a variety of ombudsman issues before joining the corporation, while still on the White House payroll. And they show that the White House instructed the corporation on Ms. Andrews's job title in her new post.

A senior corporation executive who is concerned about its direction under Mr. Tomlinson provided copies of the e-mail messages to The New York Times. Fearing retribution, the executive insisted on anonymity as a condition for providing the copies.

The e-mail messages are part of the evidence being collected in a broad inquiry by the inspector general of the corporation into whether Mr. Tomlinson violated any rules that require that the corporation act as a buffer between politics and programming.

Investigators are examining the role played by the White House in the creation of the ombudsman's office at the corporation, an office Mr. Tomlinson said he advanced as part of a broader effort to ensure balance and objectivity in programming. Executives in public television and radio have said his actions threatened their editorial independence.

Under investigation are $14,170 in contracts signed by Mr. Tomlinson with an Indiana man who monitored the political leanings of the guests on "Now" when Bill Moyers was its host. And the investigators are looking at $15,000 in payments to two Republican lobbyists last year at the direction of Mr. Tomlinson and his Republican predecessor, who remains a board member.

Mr. Tomlinson declined to respond to questions about the investigation or anything else. "We decline comment during the inspector general's review and await their report clarifying these and all related circumstances," he said by e-mail on Friday. "We are confident that the report will conclude that all of these actions were taken in accordance with the relevant rules and regulations."

In a little-noticed speech on the floor of the Senate this week, Senator Byron L. Dorgan, Democrat of North Dakota, said that in response to his request for the reports on the "Now" program, Mr. Tomlinson provided him with the raw data from reports.

Mr. Dorgan said that Senator Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska, was classified in the data as a "liberal" for an appearance on a segment of a show that questioned the Bush Administration's policies in Iraq. Mr. Hagel is considered a mainstream conservative with a maverick streak and a willingness to criticize the White House.

Another segment about financial waste at the Pentagon was classified as "anti-Defense," Mr. Dorgan said. He criticized Mr. Tomlinson for spending taxpayer money for studies to examine programs "to see if something is being said that might be critical about a president or Congress."

Ya know, this channel has been brought to you by the likes of Archer Daniels Midland for a long time. They've been a corporate whore for quite a while. That the White House feels a further need to bring them to heel tells me something about how paranoid the Rovians are.

Do It To Me One More Time

War debate grows louder
With public support dropping, Congress begins to question strategy

BY RON HUTCHESON

Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON — Two years after the Iraq invasion, America seems to be losing its stomach for war.

With polls finding support for the Iraq war at a record low, members of Congress are becoming increasingly vocal about their desire for an exit strategy. On Thursday, 41 House Democrats formed a new "Out of Iraq" caucus.

Separately, four lawmakers — two Democrats and two Republicans — introduced a resolution calling for withdrawal starting in October 2006. It doesn't specify an end-point for a complete withdrawal, but it bucks the Bush administration line all the same.

Its sponsors include Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., a conservative whose district includes the Marine Corps' Camp Lejeune. He's hardly a stereotypical dove. In the early days of the war, Jones' anger over French opposition prompted him to propose replacing french fries with "freedom fries" on the menu in Capitol dining rooms.

Resolution supporters acknowledged it has little chance of passage in the Republican-controlled Congress. They said their goal was to start a national debate on bringing home the 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. More than 1,700 Americans have died since President Bush ordered the invasion on March 19, 2003.

"Do we want to be there 20 years, 30 years? That's why this resolution is so important: We need to take a fresh look at where we are and where we're going," Jones said at a Capitol news conference.

The resolution's other sponsors were Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas; Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio; and Rep. Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii.

In another development, anti-war activists delivered petitions with more than 540,000 signatures to the White House demanding that Bush respond to new allegations that he deceived people in the months before the war. The controversy kicked up anew after publication last month of a secret British government memo, which said that Bush "fixed" intelligence to promote his choice for war and that he'd been determined to go to war months before he said so publicly.

Bush has said repeatedly that he accurately presented the facts as he knew them, although he has acknowledged that he was wrong about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. He also has long maintained that he didn't make a final decision to go to war until shortly before the invasion.

The fledging anti-war movement is a long way from the groundswell of opposition that rose up against the Vietnam War in the late 1960s, but Bush is concerned enough to step up efforts to rally public support. He will welcome Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al Jaafari to the White House next week and plans a series of speeches on his goals in Iraq.

"People are concerned about the situation in Iraq," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Thursday. "The president wants to see the troops come home soon. But the best way to honor the service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform is to complete the mission."

At the Pentagon, Defense officials and military commanders said talk of withdrawal could undermine U.S. troop morale and encourage Iraqi insurgents. They declined to predict when U.S. troops might come home or offer any clear yardstick for victory.

"When the Iraqis feel that they're able to take the reins completely, then, I think, we'll be looking at the V-word," said Lt. Gen. James Conway, director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Some hear echoes from Vietnam in the latest polls.

It all does sound familiar, doesn't it?

Losing the Edge

Bird Flu Drug Rendered Useless
Chinese Chickens Given Medication Made for Humans

By Alan Sipress
Washington Post Foreign Service
Saturday, June 18, 2005; A01

HONG KONG -- Chinese farmers, acting with the approval and encouragement of government officials, have tried to suppress major bird flu outbreaks among chickens with an antiviral drug meant for humans, animal health experts said. International researchers now conclude that this is why the drug will no longer protect people in case of a worldwide bird flu epidemic.

China's use of the drug amantadine, which violated international livestock guidelines, was widespread years before China acknowledged any infection of its poultry, according to pharmaceutical company executives and veterinarians.

Since January 2004, avian influenza has spread across nine East Asian countries, devastating poultry flocks and killing at least 54 people in Cambodia, Thailand and Vietnam, but none in China. World Health Organization officials warned the virus could easily undergo genetic changes to create a strain capable of killing tens of millions of people worldwide.

Although China did not report an avian influenza outbreak until February 2004, executives at Chinese pharmaceutical companies and veterinarians said farmers were widely using the drug to control the virus in the late 1990s.

The Chinese Agriculture Ministry approved the production and sale of the drug for use in chickens, according to officials from the Chinese pharmaceutical industry and the government, although such use is barred in the United States and many other countries. Local government veterinary stations instructed Chinese farmers on how to use the drug and at times supplied it, animal health experts said.

Amantadine is one of two types of medication for treating human influenza. But researchers determined last year that the H5N1 bird flu strain circulating in Vietnam and Thailand, the two countries hardest hit by the virus, had become resistant, leaving only an alternative drug that is difficult to produce in large amounts and much less affordable, especially for developing countries in Southeast Asia.

"It's definitely an issue if there's a pandemic. Amantadine is off the table," said Richard Webby, an influenza expert at St. Jude Children's Research Hospital in Memphis.

Health experts outside China previously said they suspected the virus's resistance to the medicine was linked to drug use at poultry farms but were unable to confirm the practice inside the country. Influenza researchers at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in particular, have collected information about amantadine use from Chinese Web sites but have been frustrated in their efforts to learn more on the ground.

This is incredibly bad news, which comes just as we are learning of a cluster of new cases in Viet Nam.

Our Time

Here is the link to the Real video of the Conyers' hearing from yesterday. If you haven't seen it, try to find the time. It is powerful stuff.

The event is 3 hours and 5 minutes.

C-Span 2 will also be broadcasting the video tonight at 8 PM EDT.

This is the 21st century's equivalent of the Pentagon Papers. Watergate took a long time to build, too.

Risking the House

Regulators May Warn About New Mortgages
Guidance Would Address Use of High-Risk Loans

By Kirstin Downey
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, June 17, 2005; Page D03

Federal banking regulators are preparing to warn lenders about the risks posed by the growing popularity of new kinds of adjustable-rate home mortgages that could leave borrowers facing steeper payments if interest rates rise or facing foreclosure if home values flatten or fall.

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which regulates national banks, is considering a warning called a "guidance," which is a directive to lenders that would specify the kinds of loans and borrowers that would draw regulatory scrutiny because they are riskier. The OCC is reviewing interest-only loans that allow buyers to defer paying off the principal on the loan, as well as "option ARMs," or adjustable-rate mortgages that permit borrowers to decide how much to pay each month but leave them at risk of losing their homes if they do not pay enough.

These loans are proliferating in high-cost housing markets such as Washington, where buyers are using them to keep payments low enough that they can afford homes.

"We've noticed the rapid growth of interest-only loans and the growth of payment-option ARMs, and we thought it was worthy of more study," said Barbara Grunkemeyer, deputy comptroller for credit risk at the OCC. "We're doing our homework at this point to gain a better understanding" of how the loans are performing, she said. "We'll get something out on it, but not before the fall."

Grunkemeyer said the OCC is trying to distinguish where the mortgages are being marketed appropriately and where they are not. She said that the new kinds of mortgages were developed to meet the needs of "high-income, high-net-worth individuals who wanted to pursue other investment opportunities" and that they pose little risk when borrowers have substantial assets.

"The last thing we want to do is to come out with a half-baked guidance that puts a damper on a good product," Grunkemeyer said. She said the OCC is seeking to avoid a "knee-jerk reaction."

But she said the growth of the loans has raised concern because they "introduce new risk by shifting from the bank to the borrower more of the credit risk."

This is scary shit. Look forward to a boatload of bankruptcies and foreclosures when those option ARMS and and interest only loans adjust. That'll take the wind out of the housing bubble.

Posted by Melanie at 05:36 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Ingrates

An Insider's Troubling Account of the U.S. Role in Iraq
By MICHIKO KAKUTANI

Mendacity as Policy

US lied to Britain over use of napalm in Iraq war
By Colin Brown, Deputy Political Editor

17 June 2005

American officials lied to British ministers over the use of "internationally reviled" napalm-type firebombs in Iraq.

Yesterday's disclosure led to calls by MPs for a full statement to the Commons and opened ministers to allegations that they held back the facts until after the general election.

Despite persistent rumours of injuries among Iraqis consistent with the use of incendiary weapons such as napalm, Adam Ingram, the Defence minister, assured Labour MPs in January that US forces had not used a new generation of incendiary weapons, codenamed MK77, in Iraq.

But Mr Ingram admitted to the Labour MP Harry Cohen in a private letter obtained by The Independent that he had inadvertently misled Parliament because he had been misinformed by the US. "The US confirmed to my officials that they had not used MK77s in Iraq at any time and this was the basis of my response to you," he told Mr Cohen. "I regret to say that I have since discovered that this is not the case and must now correct the position."

Mr Ingram said 30 MK77 firebombs were used by the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force in the invasion of Iraq between 31 March and 2 April 2003. They were used against military targets "away from civilian targets", he said. This avoids breaching the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW), which permits their use only against military targets.

Britain, which has no stockpiles of the weapons, ratified the convention, but the US did not.

The confirmation that US officials misled British ministers led to new questions last night about the value of the latest assurances by the US. Mr Cohen said there were rumours that the firebombs were used in the US assault on the insurgent stronghold in Fallujah last year, claims denied by the US. He is tabling more questions seeking assurances that the weapons were not used against civilians.

Mr Ingram did not explain why the US officials had misled him, but the US and British governments were accused of a cover-up. The Iraq Analysis Group, which campaigned against the war, said the US authorities only admitted the use of the weapons after the evidence from reporters had become irrefutable.

Mike Lewis, a spokesman for the group, said: "The US has used internationally reviled weapons that the UK refuses to use, and has then apparently lied to UK officials, showing how little weight the UK carries in influencing American policy."

Methinks the timetable for Tony's resignation just got moved up.

I note that this story is not being reported by any US news outlet.

The Best Government Money Can Buy

The NYT ed page is having a little irony attack.

Lobbying From Within

Published: June 17, 2005

It was no surprise to learn that Philip Cooney, who resigned last week as chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, will soon take a job at Exxon Mobil. His yeoman work in fighting against limits on greenhouse gas emissions, first as a lawyer for the oil industry's main lobbying group and then at the White House, where he sanitized reports to play down the link between emissions and global warming, clearly earned the reward of a cushy job with Exxon, a leading opponent of curbs on emissions.

Yet it is surely a cause for dismay that the Bush administration has seen fit to embed so many former lobbyists in key policy or regulatory jobs where they can carry out their industry's agenda from within. Whereas the word lobbyist once connoted those who hung around in lobbies to buttonhole powerful politicians when they emerged from the inner sanctums, these modern-day lobbyists occupy the inner sanctums themselves.

Take William Myers III, another former lobbyist who is now being promoted for a high-level judicial post by President Bush. Mr. Myers, a longtime lobbyist for the mining and cattle industries, served as the top lawyer at the Interior Department in Mr. Bush's first administration. In that job, he issued an opinion opening Indian lands to mining degradation and was criticized by his hometown newspaper for acting as an apologist for the cattle industry. Now he has been rewarded with the president's nomination for a seat on a federal appeals court that has a major voice in environmental law in Western states.

Still deeply entrenched is Mark Rey, the under secretary for natural resources and environment in the Agriculture Department, a longtime lobbyist for forest-related industries who has used his post to weaken protections for the national forests. In the past four years, the administration has undercut agreements to preserve old-growth trees and wildlife in major West Coast forests, overturned a roadless rule protecting the most remote areas of forests and announced an overhaul of planning rules governing all national forests. Based on the Myers precedent, it looks as if Mr. Rey may be campaigning for a Supreme Court nomination.

A slightly different, but equally worrisome, kind of conflict emerged last week when the Justice Department prematurely scuttled much of its own case in the final rounds of a civil racketeering trial against the tobacco industry. The decision to reduce the amount of money demanded of the industry from an expected $130 billion to a mere $10 billion was made by Associate Attorney General Robert McCallum Jr. over the strenuous objections of the career lawyers running the case.

Mr. McCallum, a close friend of President Bush from their days as Skull & Bones members at Yale, had not been a lobbyist for the tobacco industry, but he was a partner in a law firm that did legal work for R.J. Reynolds Tobacco, and his own legal work included medical malpractice defense, among other specialties. As Eric Lichtblau showed in yesterday's Times, the career lawyers complained in a memo that Mr. McCallum had made a preliminary decision without even reviewing their evidence. They suggested that the department's cave-in stemmed from "sticker shock" over the amount the industry might have to pay.

The "revolving door" in which people shuttle back and forth between jobs in government and industry is a sad fixture of Washington life. There are rules, albeit weak ones, that seek to limit what government officials can do when they first return to the private sector. But the public has little protection against the machinations of lobbyists who are invited into government and given the levers of power. In an administration that saw fit to put Vice President Dick Cheney, a former oil industry executive, in charge of drafting its closed-door energy policy, there is little prospect for reining in the special interests. The public will be the loser.

"Will be?" Give me a freakin' break. K Street has been blatantly running this administration since day one. Remember Cheney's "Energy Task Force?"

The Plague Years

Please read this. I left a comment there with my own story. I paid most of my expenses through grad school (the first time) by wheezing for science as a lab rat, a "research subject" for an asthma study at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston. The more revolting and instrusive the experiment, the more it paid. I elected to participate in the most remunerative ones. They paid most of my rent and groceries so that I only had $10,000 of loans when I graduated. These days, that's nothing.

The End of History

U.S. Pressure Weakens G-8 Climate Plan
Global-Warming Science Assailed

By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, June 17, 2005; Page A01

Bush administration officials working behind the scenes have succeeded in weakening key sections of a proposal for joint action by the eight major industrialized nations to curb climate change.

Under U.S. pressure, negotiators in the past month have agreed to delete language that would detail how rising temperatures are affecting the globe, set ambitious targets to cut carbon dioxide emissions and set stricter environmental standards for World Bank-funded power projects, according to documents obtained by The Washington Post. Negotiators met this week in London to work out details of the document, which is slated to be adopted next month at the Group of Eight's annual meeting in Scotland.

The administration's push to alter the G-8's plan on global warming marks its latest effort to edit scientific or policy documents to accord with its position that mandatory carbon dioxide cuts are unnecessary. Under mounting international pressure to adopt stricter controls on heat-trapping gas emissions, Bush officials have consistently sought to modify U.S. government and international reports that would endorse a more aggressive approach to mitigating global warming.

Last week, the New York Times reported that a senior White House official had altered government documents to emphasize the uncertainties surrounding the science on global warming. That official, White House Council on Environmental Quality chief of staff Phillip Cooney, left the administration last Friday to take a public relations job with oil giant Exxon Mobil, a leading opponent of mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions.

The wording of the international document, titled "Climate Change, Clean Energy and Sustainable Development," will help determine what, if any, action the G-8 countries will take as a group to combat global warming. Every member nation except the United States has pledged to bring its greenhouse gas emissions down to 1990 levels by 2012 as part of the Kyoto Protocol, an international treaty, and British Prime Minister Tony Blair -- who currently heads the G-8 -- is trying to coax the United States into adopting stricter climate controls.

In preparation for the summit, negotiators are trying to work out the wording of statements on climate change and other issues that leaders of all eight nations are willing to endorse. The language is not final, but the documents show that a number of deletions have been made at U.S. insistence.

We're just a rogue nation now, being run at the behest of business interests. You and I aren't citizens any longer, we are consumers or potential consumers with no other utility than what we eat or burn.

Tony's Misread

The Latest Downing Street Memos
David Corn

A March 8, 2002, options paper prepared by Blair's national security aides noted that Iraq's nuclear weapons program was "effectively frozen," its missile program "severely restricted," and its chemical and biological weapons programs "hindered." Saddam Hussein, it reported, "has not succeeded in seriously threatening his neighbors." This paper also said the intelligence on Iraq's supposed WMD program was "poor." It noted that there was no "recent evidence" of Iraqi ties to al Qaeda.

All of this contradicts what Bush told Americans before the invasion of Iraq. He and his aides claimed that Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear weapons program, that Hussein was producing and stockpiling biological and chemical weapons, that Baghdad was in cahoots with al Qaeda, and that the intelligence obtained by the United States and other governments (presumably including the Brits) left "no doubt" that Iraq posed a direct WMD threat to the United States.

The British memos are further evidence that Bush overstated the main reasons for the war. They also show that his key line of defense is bunk. When confronted with questions about the lack of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Bush and his allies have consistently pointed to bad intelligence. But the previously released Downing Street memos and the new ones indicate that the Brits--who had access to the prewar intelligence--saw that the WMD case (based on that intelligence) was, as Jack Straw observed, weak. One might ask, why did they have such a different take than the one Bush shared with the public?

These memos demonstrate that the issue is not whether Bush was unwittingly duped by bad intelligence. (Bad, George Tenet, bad.) No, Bush tried to sell lousy--or "thin"--intelligence as the basis for the war he desired. According to the new documents, the Brits saw through this. But they did not share their informed perspective with the British or American public. Instead, they went along for the ride.

Why did Blair join with Bush? Probably for several reasons. The memos do show the Blair gang was worried about Saddam Hussein and WMDs, despite realizing Bush was hyping the threat. But the Ricketts' memo suggests Blair saddled up with Bush partly so he could steer the American president. In this memo--entitled "Advice for the Prime Minister"--Ricketts wrote:

By sharing Bush's broad objective, the Prime Minister can help shape how it is defined, and the approach to achieving it. In the process he can bring home to Bush some of the realities which will be less evident from Washington. He can help Bush make good decisions by telling him things his own machine probably isn't.

Ricketts was essentially saying that Bush was not fully attached to reality and that his "own machine" was not providing him all the necessary information. What a harsh indictment of a partner-in-war. Ricketts feared that Bush consequently would make rotten decisions about the war in Iraq. But, Ricketts noted, Blair could be a positive influence by spelling out "the realities" for Bush. Blair, though, could only do that if he was with the program. This is a chilling passage. It illuminates the arrogance of the Blairites. Because they knew better than the not-fully-informed president, they assumed they could nudge Bush in the appropriate direction. But they were signing up for a war led by a man whom they believed was not in sync with reality and who could not be trusted to wage war properly on his own.

What hubris on the part of the Blair team. Feeling superior to Bush, they felt they would be the tail that would wag the dog. But Blair ended up with a war based on a "thin" claim that has yielded an enormous mess. And the fellow in charge of finding a way out of this jam is a guy whose "own machine" keeps reality from him.

Conservatives, some editors in the establishment media, and even the usually smart columnist Michael Kinsley have dismissed the significance and newsworthiness of the Downing Street memos. But these documents afford the public a more extensive view of the misrepresentations Bush deployed to grease the way to war. And they illustrate the serious doubts the Brits had concerning the lead arguments for war and concerning the man who was making those arguments. If only the Downing Street documents could be augmented by a similar set of Pennsylvania Avenue memos.

Tony's conceit was that he could run W. He has been proven wrong in such a way that his legacy will be forever tainted. He will retire to Harrow in shame.

The Good Times

What's the Matter With Ohio?

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: June 17, 2005

The Toledo Blade's reports on Coingate - the unfolding tale of how Ohio's Bureau of Workers' Compensation misused funds - deserve much more national attention than they have received so far. For one thing, it's an entertaining story that seems to get weirder by the week. More important, it's an object lesson in what happens when you have one-party rule untrammeled by any quaint notions of independent oversight.

In April, The Blade reported that the bureau, which provides financial support for workers injured on the job, had invested $50 million in Capital Coin, a rare-coin trading operation run by Tom Noe, an influential Republican fund-raiser.

At first, state officials angrily insisted that this unusual use of state funds was a good investment that had nothing to do with Mr. Noe's political connections. An accounting investigation revealed, however, that Mr. Noe's claims to be running a profitable business were fictitious: he had lost millions, and 121 valuable coins were missing.

On June 3, police raided the Colorado home of Michael Storeim, Mr. Noe's business associate, and seized hundreds of rare coins. After changing the locks, they left 3,500 bottles of wine, valued at several hundred thousand dollars, in the home's basement.

On Monday, Mr. Storeim told police that someone had broken into his house over the weekend and stolen much of the wine, along with artwork, guns, jewelry and cars. As I said, this story keeps getting weirder.

Meanwhile, The Blade uncovered an even bigger story: the Bureau of Workers' Compensation invested $225 million in a hedge fund managed by MDL Capital, whose chairman had strong political connections. When this investment started to go sour, the bureau's chief financial officer told another top agency official that he had been told to "give MDL a break."

By October 2004, state officials knew that MDL had lost almost the entire investment, but they kept the loss hidden until this month.

How could such things happen? The answer, it has become clear, lies in a web of financial connections between state officials and the businessmen who got to play with state funds.

We're not just talking about campaign contributions, although Mr. Noe's contributions ranged so widely that five of the state's seven Supreme Court justices had to recuse themselves from cases associated with the scandal. (He's also under suspicion of using intermediaries to contribute large sums, illegally, to the Bush campaign.) We're talking about personal payoffs: bargain vacations for the governor's chief of staff at Mr. Noe's Florida home, the fact that MDL Capital employs the daughter of one of the members of the workers' compensation oversight board, and more.

Now, politicians and businessmen are always in a position to do each other lucrative favors. Government is relatively clean when politicians are sufficiently afraid of scandal to resist temptation. But when a political machine controls all branches of government, and those officials charged with oversight are also reliably partisan, politicians feel safe from investigation. Their inhibitions dissolve, and they take full advantage of their position, until the scandals become too big to hide.

In other words, Ohio's state government today is a lot like Boss Tweed's New York. Unfortunately, a lot of other state governments look similar - and so does Washington.

Since their 1994 takeover of Congress, and even more so since the 2000 election, Republican leaders have sought to make their political dominance permanent. They redistricted Texas to lock in their control of the House. Through the "K Street Project" they have put lobbying firms under partisan control, starving the Democrats of campaign funds. And they are, of course, trying to pack the courts with partisan loyalists.

In effect, they're trying to turn America into a giant version of the elder Richard Daley's Chicago.

These efforts have already created an environment in which politicians from the right party and businessmen with the right connections believe, with good reason, that they have immunity.

And politicians who feel that they can exploit their position tend to do just that. It's a likely bet that the scandals we already know about, from Coingate to Tom DeLay's dealings with the lobbyist Jack Abramoff, are just the tip of the iceberg.

The message from Ohio is that long-term dominance by a political machine leads to corruption, regardless of the policies that machine follows or the ideology it claims to represent.

Hello, Tammany Hall. Tom DeLay loves the good old days.

First They Came For the Muslim Girls....

Questions, Bitterness and Exile for Queens Girl in Terror Case

By NINA BERNSTEIN
Published: June 17, 2005

DHAKA, Bangladesh - Slumped at the edge of the bed she would have to share with four relatives that night, the 16-year-old girl from Queens looked stunned.

On the hot, dusty road from the airport, she had watched rickshaws surge past women sweeping the streets, bone-thin in their bright saris. Now, in a language she barely understood, unfamiliar aunts and uncles lamented her fate: to be forced to leave the United States, her home since kindergarten, because the F.B.I. had mysteriously identified her as a potential suicide bomber.

"I feel like I'm on a different planet," the girl, Tashnuba Hayder, said. "It just hit me. How everything happened - it's like, 'Oh, my God.' "

The story of how it happened - how Tashnuba, the pious, headstrong daughter of Muslim immigrants living in a neighborhood of tidy lawns and American flags, was labeled an imminent threat to national security - is still shrouded in government secrecy. After nearly seven weeks in detention, she was released in May on the condition that she leave the country immediately. Only immigration charges were brought against her and another 16-year-old New York girl, who was detained and released. Federal officials will not discuss the matter.

But as the first terror investigation in the United States known to involve minors, the case reveals how deeply concerned the government is that a teenager might become a terrorist, and the lengths to which federal agents will go if they get even a whiff of that possibility. And it has drawn widespread attention, stoking the debate over the right balance between government vigilance and the protection of individual freedoms.

It is not known what prompted the authorities to investigate Tashnuba, who says the accusations are false. But in a series of interviews - her first - she said the government had apparently discovered her visits to an Internet chat room where she took notes on sermons by a charismatic Islamic cleric in London, a sheik who has long been accused of encouraging suicide bombings.

An F.B.I. agent, posing as a youth counselor, first confronted Tashnuba in her bedroom, going through her school papers and questioning everything from her views on jihad to her posterless walls, she said. Sent to a center for delinquents in Pennsylvania, Tashnuba said she was interrogated without a lawyer or parent present, about her beliefs and those of her friends, mainly American girls she had met at city mosques.

As suicide bombings mount overseas, with teenage girls among the perpetrators, there is no doubt that the government's intelligence efforts are spurred by legitimate fears. The agent leading this investigation was a Muslim woman born in Britain who has voiced strong concern about radical clerics' influence on young immigrants there. And in Tashnuba, who wore a veil and talks of an ideal Islamic state, she met unsettling opinions and teenage defiance.

But Tashnuba says that she opposes suicide bombing, that her interest in the cleric was casual, and that the government treated her like a criminal simply for exercising the freedoms of speech and religion that America had taught her.

As she tells it, F.B.I. agents tried to twist mundane details of her life to fit the profile of a terrorist recruit, and when they could not make a case, covered their tracks by getting her out of the country. In fact, the court order of "voluntary departure" that let her leave requires a finding that the person is not deportable for endangering national security.

Tashnuba said she believed she was singled out precisely because she is a noncitizen - allowing investigators to invoke immigration law, bypassing the familiar limits of criminal and juvenile proceedings.

"That gave them the green light to get me out of my family," Tashnuba said during her long journey with her mother and siblings to this teeming city where she was born.

If they can do it to her, they can do it to you. This is horseshit out of the pen of Nina Bernstein, who ought to know better.

When the Justice Department can keylog your email account (yes, they can) innocent people like this girl are going to pay the price for the fact that most of Amerika isn't paying attention. That is how the bad things start, lack of attention. Don't expect congressional oversight. That's not going to happen in this Amerika's version of the balance of powers.

Are we safer because this girl got deported? Don't make me laugh.

This Christian Nation

Black church leaders embarrass Bush over African aid shortfall
By Rupert Cornwell in Washington

16 June 2005

Leading black US pastors have embarrassed the administration by questioning the sincerity of its commitment to increasing aid to Africa, dealing a blow to White House efforts to boost support for Republicans in a traditionally hostile constituency.

In a letter to the White House this week, the pastors demanded that George Bush give "ardent support" to Tony Blair's proposal that the leading industrialised countries would double official aid to the world's poorest continent over just five years.

A meeting with Condoleezza Rice, the Secretary of State, in May appeared to confirm the administration's commitment to the Africa cause, but last week Mr Bush made clear he would stick to the smaller amounts specified by the so-called Millennium Challenge account, unveiled in 2002.

This ties aid to "good governance" and the embrace of market economics by recipient countries. The goal was to double core US development aid by 2005. But disbursements have been held up by bureaucracy, and pressures arising from the huge US budget deficit.

The Rev Eugene Rivers, one of the pastors, told the Los Angeles Times some of his colleagues were upset that Mr Blair, who had "stood by the President on Iraq at enormous political cost to himself ... did not appear to be receiving the same level of support when it came to Africa". In less than a month, Mr Blair hosts the Gleneagles G8 summit at which aid for Africa will be a key topic, and the President's move threatens to take some of the gloss off the recent agreement by the wealthiest industrial nations, based on a deal between Britain and the US. It forgives $40bn (£22bn) of official debt owed by 18 of the world's poorest countries, many in Africa.

The US is also at odds with most of its G8 partners for its reluctance to act on global warming, the other big theme of the summit.

The letter, for which its authors are seeking 1,000 signatures, acknowledges that the Bush administration has tripled US financial assistance to Africa. But that, it says, was dwarfed by the sums spent on tax cuts and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Mr Rivers said: "If we can give a $140bn tax cut to the richest of the rich, who are not infrequently white, we can give $25bn (£13bn) to the poorest of the poor, who are not infrequently black." The US level of official aid is less than 0.2 per cent of GDP compared to the United Nations target of 0.7 per cent. But Washington says much aid is wasted or swallowed by corruption. It also says official aid statistics ignore the large amounts of US private sector assistance.

A rift with black religious leaders would be a political blow for Bush strategists. Republicans have fared poorly with African-American voters. But in 2004 Mr Bush significantly improved his showing compared to 2000, as he courted church communities, stressing his experience as a born-again Christian.

It is hard to know where to start. If Bush is a Christian, I guess that I and most of the other ministers I know are not. Mr. Bush's privitized agenda runs directly counter to the The Sermon on the Mount and its Beatitudes. The hegemonic power of a superstate to make war is not addressed any where in the Gospels. I don't know which "Jesus, who changed my heart" Bush found in the Gospels, I certainly can't find the warlike one he seems to prefer. I met the one who counseled us to "beat our swords into plowshears." Ruthless cuts to the social safety net with tax cuts to the richest don't seem very Christian to me. The counsel of the Gospel is to consider the poor first. In a globalized world, where superbugs don't know class or national boundries, that just seems wise. As with AIDS, malaria and TB, the poor suffer harder than the rest.

This is our world this morning. If you can't sleep well with it, so be it. Mr. Bush is in bed by 9 most nights, or so says his wife.

Set Your TiVo

The Conyers' hearing will be re-broadcast tomorrow night on C-Span 2 at 8 PM EDT. Make whatever arrangements you need to make in order to see this, it is an extraordinarily powerful event. Throw together a house-party and invite your friends and relations. The remarks (not "testimony," this wasn't a legal hearing and no one was sworn in) by attorney John Bonifaz of afterdowningstreet.org on the constitutional issues were particularly convincing.

Those who are unfamiliar with the Constitution are probably not aware that we are in a constitutional crisis on at least three levels in this country. The Constitution requires congressional oversight of the executive. This Congress fails to do so. The Constitution requires a commission of iinquiry when faced with compelling evidence that the executive branch committed a possible felony in providing Congress with information which is untrue or incomplete. In order for the balance of powers to function, the federal judiciary needs to be free of political partisans who make partisan rulings from the bench.

These great dangers are off the radar screens of all but constitutional scholars in this country because they can't be explained in the 10 second sound bites that pass for news in the US.

Watch the Conyers hearing tomorrow night or online in the C-span archive. This was a great moment for democracy.

Bad Language

World unprepared for next influenza pandemic: health experts
Melissa Lee, Star Tribune
June 16, 2005 FLU0617

WASHINGTON, D.C. - The world is ill-prepared for an overdue influenza pandemic that threatens to kill millions and shut down the global economy, a panel of health experts said Thursday.

University of Minnesota public health professor Michael Osterholm joined other panelists, including a top-ranked official from the National Institutes of Health, in urging the government to start developing plans for how to deal with the next strain of flu virus.

"Make no mistake about it: Of all the infectious diseases influenza is the lion king," Osterholm said. "I don't know what else to say except, 'We're screwed.'"

They couldn't predict exactly when a pandemic might strike, but they did say it would be disastrous if governments around the world don't ratchet up research and preparedness efforts immediately.

"This is not going to go away," said Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

"Get rid of the 'if.' This is going to occur."

Here in the United States, Osterholm said, the government must have specific plans in place should the virus hit. For example, it must know whether schools would close, how hospitals would handle an overflow of patients and whether planes and subways would be shut down.

It also must be prepared to deal with a total collapse of the global economy, which Americans depend on for day-to-day life, he said.

The most recent flu pandemic happened in 1918, when 30 million to 40 million people died worldwide.

That cycle could be beginning again, as the new flu strain in Asia has proved 100 percent lethal in chickens, said Laurie Garrett of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Michael Osterholm is one of the most highly thought of communicable disease specialists in the country, he is a household name in public health circles. When he says "we're screwed," the hairs on the back of my arms stand up. I have one of my bird flu partners hunting to see if we can get our hands on a transcript of Osterholm's remarks at NIH yesterday because I want to see what the full context of that comment was.

Any NIH'ers out there who can find it for me?

UPDATE:Okay, here is some better reporting and the context for Osterholm's alarming "we're screwed." Canadian Press reporter Helen Branswell is one of the finest science reporters in North America.

Pandemic could create serious and sustained food shortages, expert warns

HELEN BRANSWELL 35 minutes ago

(CP) - An influenza pandemic would dramatically disrupt the processing and distribution of food supplies across the world, emptying grocery store shelves and creating crippling shortages for months, an expert warned Thursday.

Dr. Michael Osterholm suggested policy makers must start intensive planning to figure out how to ensure food supplies for their populations during a time when international travel may be grounded or severely cut back, when workers are too sick to process or deliver food and when people will be too fearful of disease to gather in restaurants.

Food and other essential goods like drugs and surgical masks will be available at best in limited supplies, Osterholm cautioned in the July/August issue of Foreign Affairs, which devoted a number of articles to the threat of pandemic influenza.

He saved his most flatly worded warning, however, for a news conference organized by the Council on Foreign Relations, which publishes the respected journal. In an interview from Washington following the briefing, he repeated his blunt message.

"We're pretty much screwed right now," said Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota.

Osterholm said the "just-in-time" delivery model by which modern corporations operate means food distribution networks don't have warehouses brimming with months worth of inventory.

Most grocery store chains have only several days worth of their most popular commodities in warehouses, he explained, with perhaps 30 days worth of stock for less popular items.

He pointed to the short-term shortages that occur when winter storms threaten communities, then suggested people envisage the possibility of those shortages dragging on for somewhere between 18 months and three years as the expected successive waves of pandemic flu buffet the world.

"I think we'll have a very limited food supply," he said in the interview.

"As soon as you shut down both the global travel and trade . . . and (add to it) the very real potential to shut down over-land travel within a country, there are very few areas that will be hit as quickly as will be food, given the perishable nature of it."

Osterholm has been one of the most vocal proponents of the urgent need to prepare for a flu pandemic that could sicken at least a third of the world's population and kill many millions. However, he is not alone in fearing the world may be facing a pandemic, widely viewed as the single most disruptive and deadly infectious disease event known to humankind.
....
Laurie Garrett, a fellow at the council, noted the unprecedented potential of a pandemic to wreak economic and political havoc.

"Frankly no models of social response to such a pandemic have managed to factor in fully the potential effect on human productivity," Garrett, a Pulitzer-prize winning former journalist and author of The Coming Plague, said in an article in the journal.

"It is therefore impossible to reckon accurately the potential global economic impact."

Osterholm said it is incumbent on governments to start identifying essential basic commodities and figuring out supply and delivery for a time when long-distance truckers may balk at travelling to affected communities and armed forces personnel may be too sick to fill in the gaps.

We're screwed in a bunch of other ways. If the morbidity and mortality is as severe as Osterholm fears, every single economic system which touches our daily lives, from banking and credit to power, water and gasoline, will be effected for a prolonged period of time. Imagine protracted power outages because the technicians who can repair them are ill. Imagine hospitals closing as healthcare workers sicken. Imagine pharmacies closing for the same reason, or running out of drugs taken by the chronically ill. Imagine the banks closing and the ATMs running out of cash because those who service them are ill. Imagine the pumping stations of your municipal water station shutting down because they cannot be repaired (in addition to losing water for drinking and cooking and basic hygiene, you'll be wanting to wash your hands a lot, its one of the few ways to cut down on transmissible infection.) Big fan of public transit? Believe me, you won't be using it. Make other plans. Right now, start refilling your gas tank when it hits "half." Get in the habit (I'm trying myself, one of those women who doesn't buy gas until the VW starts giving me the "ding" signal, meaning that I'm down to an eigth of a tank.)

If it is bad enough, churches and schools will be closed and those who can (if they aren't ill) will be told to work from home.

Think all of this through carefully. Historically, pandemics come in several waves over a multi-month period. It won't be an economic crisis which is basically over in a week, like a heavy winter storm. Whatever preparations you are planning to make for the possibility (increasingly, the inevitability) of this pandemic, remember to think long term. Stocking up on milk, bread and toilet paper isn't going to cut it. You will need to plan for this as something akin to a natural disaster from which there will be sporadic recoveries and collapses.

We have no model for how this will affect the world economy, and how those macro effects will ripple out to each of us individually. So, use your imagination. Think through a day in your life. Think about how each of those transactions could be disrupted and start planning. If you are in the management of a small business which doesn't own key man insurance, get it now. Think about keeping a stash of cash in your home. And I mean a stash, at least a grand. If the credit card system grinds to a halt because there aren't enough well technicians to keep the verification system up and running, the economy will be all cash. Don't count on your bills to get paid by automatic debits, the EFT system may experience outages for the same reason. Use checks, the government will extend the float period if the Fed shuts down once in a while.

Think about extending your web relationships. For a while, it may be the only safe way to have community. If you are reading blogs but not commenting, think about a little, "Hi, thanks for this." in the comments boxes of the ones you like. You'll find bloggers and readers with interests similar to yours.

I'll have a lot more to say about the sociology, anthropology, politics and, yes, even spirituality of pandemic flu in the weeks to come. You'll read about it here and at the new venture which will go live in the next week or so. I'm joining forces with a couple of medical experts and a bunch of well informed contributing editors to create an open source wiki. I'll let you know when we're ready to go live. Yes, Bump will continue in the same form, I'll just have a new forum for a different kind of focus.

Conyers' Hearing

Amb. Joseph Wilson is first up. Same old, same old.

Cindy Sheehan, founder, Gold Star Families for Peace. Emotional testimony from the mother of a soldier killed in action. "My son was given a death sentence before he even joined the army in 2000." "Where was the urgency, where was the necessity of running in?"

Next up, Ray McGovern, who begins with film clips of Colin Powell and Condi Rice telling the world that Saddam posed no threat in the spring and summer of 2001. Strong opening. Saddam's son-in-law told us in his defection de-brief that all of Iraqs WMD were destroyed in 1999, but Cheney claimed that the same man said the opposite.

McGovern said that in his 27 years in the CIA he saw plenty of politicizing, but not at the level of the Vice President.

Last, John Bonifaze, founder of afterdowningstreet.org, discusses the constitutional issues. "A President is impeachable if he attempts to subvert the Constitution," and more along that line, including knowingly giving bad information to the Senate. He discusses the historic understanding of the role of impeachment in the balance of powers. Is it a high crime to manipulate intelligence to justify a war? The Constitution requires a commission of inquiry if there is reason to believe an impeachable offense has occured.

The question and answer session you simply have to see. I'm sure the hearing will be replayed a number of times between this evening and the end of the weekend on C-Span 1. Check their schedule for replay times. This is extremely damning stuff.

New Toy

Our American Street colleague points us to this new and very useful search tool, sort of an aggregator of search engines. I'll be wasting spending some time learning to use it today.

Having Cake and Eating It Too

Times of London reporter Michael Smith (who broke the Downing Street Memos) was online for a live chat earlier today. Here is what he says in response to a question about the poor coverage the story has been getting on both sides of the pond:

Firstly, I think the leaks were regarded as politically motivated. Secondly there was a feeling of well we said that way back when. Then of course as the pressure mounted from the outside, there was a defensive attitude. "We have said this before, if you the reader didn't listen well what can we do", seemed to be the attitude. I dont know if you have this expression over there, but we say someone "wants to have their cake and eat it". That's what that response reeks of. Either it was politically motivated and therefore not true or it was published before by the US newspapers and was true, it cant be both can it?

The attitude they have taken is just flat wrong, to borrow an expression from the White House spokesman on the Downing St Memo.

It is one thing for the New York Times or the Washington Post to say that we were being told that the intelligence was being fixed by sources inside the CIA or Pentagon or the NSC and quite another to have documentary confirmation in the form of the minutes of a key meeting with the Prime Minister's office. Think of it this way, all the key players were there. This was the equivalent of an NSC meeting, with the President, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Condi Rice, George Tenet, and Tommy Franks all there. They say the evidence against Saddam Hussein is thin, the Brits think regime change is illegal under international law so we are going to have to go to the UN to get an ultimatum, not as a way of averting war but as an excuse to make the war legal, and oh by the way we arent preparing for what happens after and no-one has the faintest idea what Iraq will be like after a war. Not reportable, are you kidding me?

One point I would make though, everyone keeps saying it is continually making waves over here. We at the Sunday Times are not going to let it go but no-one else is interested in the UK press. The Washington Post came to it late but look at everything it is doing now. Ignore today's silly editorial article. The Post is now working away at this and I know they are planning to try to do more on it. Sadly there is no sign of the New York Times changing its sniffy we told you this already view!

I'll be live-blogging the Conyers forum at 2:30 EDT. I guess if I'm going to get a walk in today, I'd better do it now.

The Players

A powerhouse of the right flexes muscle
Roe v. Wade could be overturned within a decade, says the president of the Family Research Council.
By David Cook | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

WASHINGTON – Despite prospects that President Bush will soon get to name one or more new Supreme Court Justices, the leader of a major Christian conservative lobbying group expects about a decade of struggle before state abortion laws change in a significant way.

"It is a long-term process," Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, said Wednesday at a Monitor breakfast for reporters. It could take "8 to 10 years, once we have seen changes in the court, for that change to move across the country." He expects an anti-abortion state to pass a ban on abortion and ultimately have it upheld by a changed Supreme Court.

The Family Research Council describes itself as championing "marriage and family as the foundation of civilization, the seedbed of virtue, and the wellspring of society." The Nation magazine, no fan of the Council, recently described it as "the Christian right lobbying powerhouse."

The Council's focus will continue to be on judges, even though the retirement and replacement of Chief Justice William Rehnquist would not change the ideological balance of the US Supreme Court. "It is when we get to a second nomination that the real battle takes place," Perkins said.

And then they'll work to overturn Griswold.

Firing Back

50 Governors Unite Against Federal Cuts to Medicaid
# Their plan would add some restrictions and give states more say. The bipartisan effort goes against Bush's plan for reducing spending.

By Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — Governors stepped up their campaign against the Bush administration's proposed cuts in Medicaid on Wednesday by presenting Congress with their own ambitious plan to restructure the safety-net health program that serves about 53 million Americans.

The new proposal, backed by all 50 governors, would give states more latitude in reshaping benefits and trimming costs. It would cut into drug company profits, but also would make it harder for middle-class families to shift assets in order to get the government to pick up nursing home bills for elderly relatives. It could force the poor to pay more for medications, but it would also help uninsured low-income workers get coverage.

"The Medicaid program is not sustainable in the long haul," Virginia Gov. Mark R. Warner, a Democrat, told reporters before he and Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, a Republican, formally presented the plan to the Senate and House committees that oversee the program.

The proposal has "the support of the governors of America, no matter what state they live in or what party they're from," Huckabee added.

"We may be the only bipartisan game in town," Warner said.

The show of unity puts President Bush in an awkward political position. Cuts in Medicaid are an integral part of his plan to lower the deficit by cutting spending while making his first-term tax cuts permanent.

Congress has already reduced Bush's initial proposal for Medicaid cuts from $60 billion over five years to $10 billion, and Warner urged Wednesday that Congress make immediate cuts in other programs. Lawmakers should focus on modernizing Medicaid to make it more cost-efficient, potentially saving more in the long run, he said.

The governors' plan pointedly included no savings estimates. Even lawmakers who were sympathetic warned there would be cuts when Congress attempted to write a deficit reduction bill this fall. But several senators agreed with Warner that at least part of the $10 billion could come from other programs.

"It is a challenge to the administration," said Marilyn Moon, a health economist at the nonpartisan American Institutes for Research. "The governors have been fairly united in rejecting the idea of starting out with a $10-billion goal. They are essentially saying, 'If you want us to participate in any of this discussion, you can't dictate what the budgetary outcome will be.' "

All 50 governors? It looks to me as if the Republicans are having a little difficulty keeping their side together.

Of course the cuts to Medicaid were unsustainable by the states. This action by the governors is quite pointed, however.

Hearts and Minds

Food Shortages Gnaw at Iraqis' Stomachs, Morale
# Shrinking subsidized rations are blamed on corruption, security problems or the U.S. One struggling family finds 'hope is small.'

By Louise Roug, Times Staff Writer

BAGHDAD — After his American employers left, and monthly food rations began to shrink, Hussein Hadi started selling his furniture. His bed was the last thing to go.

Now Hadi, his wife, sister, mother, two brothers, three children and a nephew sleep on his living room floor in Baghdad, their blankets sewn from flour sacks.

Some nights, they fall asleep hungry. "Hope is small," said his wife, Zainab.

Like many Iraqis, the Hadis depend on food rations distributed by the government. Sometimes the sugar they receive has been hardened by rainwater and the rice is crawling with maggots. The soap is so harsh that it causes rashes. On the rare occasions when the Hadis received all the items — sugar, rice, flour, baby milk, tea, vegetable oil and a few other essentials — they considered themselves lucky.

The U.N. World Food Program, which monitors the distribution of rations, recently reported "significant countrywide shortfalls in rice, sugar, milk and infant formula." Families in Baghdad haven't received sugar or baby milk since January. Newspapers have also begun reporting that the tea and flour handouts contain metal filings and that people have fallen ill after consuming food rations.

Officials with the Trade Ministry, which is in charge of distributing the rations, said the media have created the crisis. But they have refused to release results of the tests for contamination they said they are doing.

Retail agents who sell the food baskets say the ministry is corrupt, a charge supported by Radhi Radhi, the government's anti-corruption chief. Radhi said in a recent interview that Trade Ministry officials had spread rumors about contaminated food to discredit the current flour supplier and renegotiate the contract.

Frustration, Suspicion

Some agents speculate that ministry employees have added metal filings to cheat on the parcels' weight. The same employees also sell tea and flour on the black market, agents say.

Like the Hadis, many Iraqi families rely on the heavily subsidized rations, which were previously distributed under the United Nations' oil-for-food program to mitigate the effect of sanctions after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. After the ouster of Saddam Hussein, the program was handed over to the Ministry of Trade.

More than half of Iraq's population lives below the poverty line. The country's median income fell from $255 in 2003 to about $144 in 2004, according to a recent U.N. survey. Families buy the food baskets for a few dollars at special state-licensed shops.

Ahmed Mukhtar, director general of the ministry, blamed the shortage of rations on security threats that created bottlenecks at the borders with Jordan, Syria and Turkey.

"We're attempting to make sure the supplies are safely delivered," Mukhtar said. "Anything that disturbs the food supplies is a critical situation."

Zainab Hadi said she and other women have been forced to buy food at the market, pushing prices up. The cost of tea and flour has almost tripled. At local food markets, a 35-pound can of vegetable oil, which just a few months ago cost $4 — a little more than an average day's wage — now costs $12.

Ah, yes. Making friends and influencing people in war zones the planet over. Yes, the post-war planning was just exemplary. Starving an occupied population will turn them into friends. Jeebus, the incompetence is just stunning.

Weekend Cooking

I'm building the shopping list for the Farmer's Market on Saturday (before the US Open, I'm a golf junkie): new cilantro plant (the rest of the herbs are robust, this one didn't make it) and some interesting chilis, along with a coupla pots of strange decorative grasses that tolerate part shade. I think I have room for another garlic plant. Anything else I should think about? Suggest.

With a little luck, the first corn will show up this weekend. Here is the ultimate recipe. Figure on two ears per diner.

Pick fresh white 606 corn. De-silk it, and that means pulling back the husks at the top of the ear, but no further. Just get rid of as much of the silk as you can while keeping the husk intact. The rest will burn off while you cook the ears.

Soak them, husk and all, for an hour in cold water. Keep it cold with ice. This is important, the sweetness of the cooked corn comes up with keeping it cold first.

When the ears have soaked husk and all for an hour in ice water, pull the husk back and cover the corn with sweet butter and popcorn salt. Re-wrap it with the moist husk and place on the fire in the husk, turning once over the fire. Put this right on the coals, not on the grill, the husk will do the steaming and be easy to remove once it has burnt. This is so yummy that you can skip the burgers and dogs and go immediately to the corn on the cob. This school of cooking makes the corn so sweet and tender that it is almost painful to refuse.

Pair this with fresh heritage tomatoes, sliced with fresh buffalo mozarella and dressed with fresh basil, olive oil and a grate of fresh pepper and I think you have yourself a real meal.

Finish it with some good, ripe bosc pears sliced with some bel paesa cheese, sliced and slathered on the pears and your friends will think you are a genius. I know from personal experience that this works and will drive your friends to ultimate happiness. Good, simple food well executed can't be beat. Feed the people you love really well.

New Tech

Alexandria Goes Wireless

Thursday, June 16, 2005; Page A28

ALEXANDRIA'S [VA} free wireless Internet service for part of Old Town is up and running. The network, covering eight blocks of King Street, will serve as a laboratory for new technologies that could reduce costs and increase efficiency in years to come. Among the wireless innovations the city is exploring are sensors that can tell if a traffic light has stopped functioning and report instantaneously to traffic monitors. Advances in parking meter enforcement, fire truck and ambulance dispatching, and even trash collection could arise out of a citywide wireless network, but first Alexandria officials want to try out the new devices in a small area to see if they would be worthwhile investments.

The government could have decided to keep the network private, but it chose instead to open the connection to public use. It's a happy confluence between government necessity and public utility: The city gets a place to test advanced systems while residents get a useful and attractive amenity. Because the network is available to anyone in range, it is not secure -- meaning information sent over it is considerably more vulnerable to prying eyes than it would be on a network protected by passwords and firewalls. The connection is also not expected to work indoors. These limitations mean that for businesses and residents alike the city's free wireless access would not be a viable alternative to subscribing to an Internet service provider, so the question of government competition with private enterprise doesn't arise.

Critics say that Alexandria taxpayers shouldn't have to foot the bill for a service that only a small number of residents may use. But even if usage does turn out to be low, there is a benefit for the city's taxpayers in their government testing expensive systems on a small scale. The project's estimated start-up costs are about $20,000 -- less than 30 cents per Alexandria household -- and monthly bandwidth costs hover around $650, or about 11 cents per household per year. Also, the availability of a free Internet connection may prove to be a boon for Old Town, attracting more city residents and tourists to businesses there.

Besides, lounging in the sun and enjoying the breeze while checking e-mail or updating a blog is the modern version of sitting on a park bench reading a good book. A free wireless Internet connection suggests that the city is cutting-edge. Already, Arlington and Silver Spring have plans to create free wireless zones of their own. This is the sort of municipal experiment we hope will spread.

Old Town isn't really my neighborhood or even close, but if Arlington is eying the experiment, we are starting to get close to my metro stop. I haven't really tried wireless computing from an open wi-fi connection yet, but I plan to this evening. The Panera restaurant down the street from me offers free wi-fi and I'm going to try blogging over dinner. This will mean being a public blogger, rather than the woman who blogs behind doors in the comfort of her living room. It will also mean eating one of the best Ceasar salads in the area.

Kill It!

Squelching Public Broadcasting

Published: June 15, 2005

Do little boys and girls out there know how to spell "spite"? For those who don't, the House Republicans who voted last week to gut federal support of public broadcasting - from "Sesame Street" to well beyond - are offering a graphic demonstration as they attack one of the nation's more valued institutions. The Appropriations Committee voted not only to end taxpayers' support for next year's children's shows on public radio and television (yes, "Clifford the Big Red Dog" and "Postcards from Buster," too), but also to close out entirely the $400 million in federal support of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting - the aid funnel to local stations - across the next two years.

A decade ago, Newt Gingrich tried a similar stratagem to "zero out" public broadcasting as Republicans claimed there was liberal bias in programming. The attempt failed in the face of cooler legislative heads and the proven indispensability of public broadcasting. This time, the Republicans' campaign is more threatening since it amounts to a second front in the culture war agenda identified with Kenneth Tomlinson, the Republican who is now chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Mr. Tomlinson is intent on ramming partisan "balance" on the airwaves - read that as dragging public broadcasting over to the right - by stocking the corporation with G.O.P. loyalists. In the next few weeks, the corporation's Republican-dominated board is expected to choose a former co-chairwoman of the Republican National Committee as president of the corporation.

Mr. Tomlinson has said he is concerned about the cuts and will "make the case" for federal support. But he is in an awkward position, with his own objectivity more in question than Big Bird's or Buster's. Federal money amounts to 15 percent of public broadcasting's budget revenues, but it plays a larger and particularly crucial role for smaller rural stations. More than government support, the public's faith and donations could be threatened if audiences sense the Republicans are succeeding with an ideological putsch.

Republican lawmakers insist that the budget cuts are only one of many sacrifices required for fiscal discipline - a truly laughable contention from a Congress that has broken all records for deficit spending and borrowing. The pending highway bill alone has 3,800 pet projects (cue Porky Pig, not Oscar the Grouch). These include $2 billion-plus for two ludicrous "bridges to nowhere" in rural Alaska, where, incidentally, station officials say public broadcasting may fade from the air unless the Senate blocks the House's spiteful cuts.

I think the congresscritters are going to be surprised to learn how many of their constituents are Volvo-driving, latte-sipping, sushi-eating NPR listeners.

A Stroll Along Downing Street

Rep. John Conyers' (D-MI) hearing on the Downing Street Memos will be carried live on Cspan 3 tomorrow at 2:30 EDT. I'll be live blogging it for those of you who can't watch. You can see the webcast if you aren't near a tv. Rep. Conyers with be on Cspan 1'sWashington Journal at 9 AM EDT tomorrow.

For Show

Airport Security's Grand Illusion

By Anne Applebaum

Wednesday, June 15, 2005; Page A25

this mass ceremonial sacrifice of toenail clippers on the altar of security comes at an extraordinarily high price. The annual budget of the federal Transportation Security Administration hovers around $5.5 billion -- just about the same price as the entire FBI -- a figure that doesn't include the cost of wasted time. De Rugy reckons that if 624 million passengers each spend two hours every year waiting in line, the annual loss to the economy comes to $32 billion. There has also been a price to pay in waste, since when that much money is rubbed into a problem with that kind of speed -- remember, the TSA had only 13 employees in January 2002 -- a lot of it gets misspent. In the case of the TSA, that waste includes $350,000 for a gym, $500,000 for artwork and silk plants at the agency's new operations center, and $461,000 for its first-birthday party. More to the point, the agency has spent millions, even billions, on technology that is inappropriate or outdated.

In fact, better security didn't have to cost that much. Probably the most significant measure taken in the past four years was one funded not by the government but by the airline industry, which put bulletproof doors on its cockpits at the relatively low price of $300 million to $500 million over 10 years. In extremely blunt terms, that means that while it may still be possible to blow up a plane (and murder 150 people), it is now virtually impossible to drive a plane into an office building (and murder thousands). By even the crudest cost-benefit risk analysis, bulletproof cockpit doors, which nobody notices, have the potential to save far more lives, at a far lower cost per life, than the screeners who open your child's backpack and your grandmother's purse while you stand around in your socks waiting for them to finish.

But, then, this isn't a country that has ever been good at risk analysis. If it were, we would never have invented the TSA at all. Instead, we would have taken that $5.5 billion, doubled the FBI's budget, and set up a questioning system that identifies potentially suspicious passengers, as the Israelis do. Even now, it's not too late to abolish the TSA, create a federal training program for airport screeners, and then let private companies worry about how many people to hire, which technology to buy and how long the tables in front of the X-ray machines should be (that last issue being featured in a recent government report). But every time that suggestion is made in Congress, someone denounces the plan as a "privatization" of our security and a sellout.

Which is why I conclude that we don't actually want value for money. No, we want every passenger to have the chance to recite that I-packed-these-bags-myself mantra to a uniformed official before boarding an airplane. Magic words, it seems, are what make Americans feel really safe.

We're a nation in denial. Just as we are unable to admit that the president lied, so we are unable to admit that all the money we're throwing at this non-program is completely pointless. The American mythology is that if you pay a lot for something, it must be good. In reality, all it has to do is look impressive.

Organizing News

Fraying House of Labor

By Harold Meyerson

Wednesday, June 15, 2005; Page A25

The dissident unions of the AFL-CIO are meeting in Washington today to announce that they are building a halfway house.

The Change to Win Coalition-- and boy, is that ever a provisional-sounding and utterly clunky name -- will begin life neither entirely within nor without the AFL-CIO. One of its founders, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), the AFL-CIO's largest affiliate, passed a resolution last weekend authorizing its top officers to take the union out of the federation when they deem it appropriate. All signs indicate that will happen soon.

The other founders -- the Teamsters, the food and commercial workers (both million-member unions), UNITE-HERE (the apparel and hotel workers union) and the laborers -- have each (well, all but the laborers) made noises about decamping from the federation unless more money is devoted to organizing and incumbent President John Sweeney is replaced at the AFL-CIO's July convention.

But Sweeney and his allies command a clear majority of the federation's unions, and they insist that all the dissidents except SEIU are bluffing. The food and commercial workers need the help of the AFL-CIO to organize Wal-Mart, they argue; UNITE-HERE cannot risk the withdrawal of massive union deposits from Amalgamated Bank (the nation's one labor bank, which UNITE-HERE owns).

For their part, the dissidents insist that the price of a Sweeney victory may be the dissolution of a unified labor movement. "Sweeney loses by winning," says one dissident leader. "He can win the vote at the AFL-CIO convention, but so what? It's a voluntary organization. We can leave."

In a sense, the leaders of American labor -- people who have spent their lives at the bargaining tables -- are engaging one another in a massive game of chicken. But such games can take on a life of their own, with all manner of unforeseen consequences. The Change to Win Coalition may begin as a modest group devoted to coordinating some joint organizing efforts by its member unions. But if those efforts grow, so will the financial demands on its members, which will then find themselves paying dues to both a full-fledged federation, so long as they stay in the AFL-CIO, and a new group that could look more and more like a federation rival. Under those circumstances, predicts the dissident leader, "We're not going to pay double dues."

If nothing else, today's declaration ensures that the federation's coming convention -- originally conceived as a celebration of the 50th anniversary of the merger of the AFL and the CIO -- will be a bitter affair. It was never wholly clear what there was to celebrate: At the time of the 1955 merger, 35 percent of the U.S. workforce was unionized; today that figure stands at just 12.5 percent. Unions are surely not the primary authors of their own demise, but to the extent that they are responsible, their decline can be traced back to a fateful error made at the time of the merger.

Fifty years ago CIO (and United Auto Workers) President Walter Reuther argued that the newly merged federation should be charged with organizing those sectors of the economy and regions of the country where labor had little or no presence. George Meany, then president of the AFL, countered that the individual affiliates should have that responsibility, and it was Meany's position that prevailed. Over the decades, however, most unions stuck to meeting the needs of their existing members. At first, secure in their existing labor markets, they considered the tasks of organizing the Sunbelt and the new economy beneath them. In time, with their own sectors shriveled and with the how-tos of organizing all but forgotten, they realized that such tasks were beyond them.

There is actually less here than meets the eye, at least for now. And I don't think it is horrible news. The five dissenting unions are the ones which have adopted aggressive organizing strategies and are the few unions in the country (outside of civil service) which are actually growing. The remaining unions in the AFL have tried pursuing their own strategies politically (clearly, that's not working) and servicing their existing membership while limiting the damage of declining membership.

The dissenting movements haven't yet said "We're leaving," but they are sure giving themselves that option down the road. Because they do have an aggressive growth strategy and are in growth industries, this will hurt the AFL a lot more than it will hurt them. Maybe they'll wake the other unions up.

Buy A Judge

Missing in Action?
NAM Promised to Fight Vigorously for Bush’s Judges. Or Did It?

By Tory Newmyer
Roll Call Staff

June 15, 2005

In January, barely three months into his job heading the National Association of Manufacturers, former Michigan Gov. John Engler (R) made an announcement that stunned many people in the lobbying world.

His organization, he said, would be first into the fray to support President Bush’s judicial nominees.

At at time when other major trade groups seemed eager to avoid a fight revolving around social issues and Senate filibuster rules, Engler told the Los Angeles Times that month that NAM would wage a multimillion-dollar campaign on behalf of the president’s stalled nominees.

“There has been too much of a tendency in the past to cast these judgeship battles as a social debate about abortion or gay rights,” the former governor told the paper. “In fact, there are very few of those cases in contrast to those dealing with the tort system and the rights of individuals and companies.”

He made similar comments at two public events that month, and then, in a National Press Club event Feb. 10, Engler told reporters that confirmation of federal judges would be a “major thrust” of the association.

He framed the issue as critical to business, since he said legal costs accounted for more than double what industry spends on research and development, and other major investments.

But as it turned out, NAM spent virtually nothing on the judicial filibuster fight.

Could it all have been just one big misunderstanding? NAM said that’s the case.

Pat Cleary, NAM’s vice president for communications, blamed the media for misinterpreting its position back in January.

Cleary said the original L.A. Times story — as well as pieces in The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Detroit Free Press and the online magazine Salon — actually confused two separate NAM initiatives.
....
Meanwhile on K Street, a half-dozen lobbyists for NAM member companies and rival business groups speculated privately that Engler really did intend to get more involved on judges — but got reined in by his board.

One theory is that Engler, hired to rejuvenate a trade group that had lost some ground to such rivals as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Business, wanted to set his group apart by taking up a high-profile cause and earning chits with the White House.

Another theory is that Engler let his prior career as a politician — and his close ties to Republicans who were active in the judges fight, including Bush himself — color his initial approach to his new job, even though being a trade association head is a fundamentally different task than being a partisan politician.

Either way, some lobbyists suggest that Engler was held back from taking NAM in that direction.

“Engler dreamed up this plan before he even stepped foot in NAM, but it turns out he got too far ahead of his constituent companies and got slapped down,” said a GOP lobbyist with close ties to the former governor.

“Sooner or later, membership will question what’s going on and say, ‘Why are you spending our dues on this [stuff],’” added a Democratic lobbyist for a NAM member company. “There was no hue and cry from the business community to weigh in on judges. It was 99 on a list of 100.”

Actually, Engler could probably have bought considerable Bush good will had he been allowed to go ahead with this. Membership associations have a strong tendency to be conservative, so he would have needed to sell this to the membership, which typically make changes slowly.

Real World

Robert Kuttner imagines what real leadership for this country would look like in today's BoGlo:

Head in the sand

By Robert Kuttner | June 15, 2005

One can imagine a whole to-do list of the president's national priorities:

Repairing American democracy. American citizens still have no assurance that their votes will be accurately counted. Big money is crowding out citizen participation in politics more grotesquely than ever. More ominously, our ability to decide to rise up and throw the rascals out is being eroded by partisan trickery.

Fixing our retirement system. Corporate pension funds have been allowed to become dangerously underfunded. The public Social Security system will need an overhaul to match it to longer lifespans. In our parallel universe, both parties would work together to make the necessary, fairly minor, adjustments. In this universe, the ideological goal of privatizing the system blocks fixing it.

Keeping America healthy. Our present system, which wastes at least 25 percent of all premium dollars on paper-shuffling, claims processing, and profit, hurts doctors and patients, the insured and uninsured, alike. An administration of grown-ups would get serious about getting everyone covered, preserving free choice of doctor and hospital and getting rid of parasitic middlemen.

Dealing with global climate change. With serious people running the country, nothing would be a higher priority, because global warming will irrevocably change the planet. In that parallel universe, leaders are investing seriously in clean, carbon-free energy. Here, our leaders and their oil company brethren are in drill-deeper denial.

Saving the economy. In our imaginary parallel universe, leaders are reversing the huge dependence of the United States on foreign borrowing and the endless public deficits that are starving public services. Here, starving public services is a deliberate ideological strategy. Leaders make dire threats against China one moment and gratefully accept its loans the next. Meanwhile, American jobs continue to flow outward to nations with peon wages while the administration's corporate allies cheer.

Giving every child a chance. High-stakes testing won't equalize life chances if poor kids don't come to school ready to learn. In that parallel universe, the nation is investing seriously in early-childhood education.

Using science to the fullest. In a generation, scientific advances could prevent or cure most of the scourges that ravage Africa as well as diseases amenable to stem-cell breakthroughs, such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's, ALS, and viral plagues such as AIDS. In that parallel America, leaders are providing the funding for public research, being generous with help to Africa, and wrestling with genuine ethical dilemmas such as the limits of cloning. In this universe, while real menaces like avian flu are on our doorstep, religious fundamentalists and drug companies dictate science policy.

In a decade, historians will ponder how the American people could possibly have reelected a president who lives in a fantasy world and who is doing such damage to the real world.

The poet e.e. cummings wrote, at the end of a fine poem lamenting the condition of humankind, ''Listen, there's a hell of a good universe next door. Let's go." We, alas, don't have that option. We have to bring sanity to the world we are living in.

Someone I read yesterday, I forget who, said that Americans don't want to believe that they've been lied to, so we just go into denial, which is what seems to be the case on all of these issues. If Americans were actually aware of what is being done (and left undone) they'd be storming the White House and Congress.

Uncertainty

Senate Leader Vows to Hold Another Vote on Bolton This Week

By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
Published: June 15, 2005

WASHINGTON, June 14- Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the Republican leader, vowed Tuesday to hold another vote by the end of this week on the stalled nomination of John R. Bolton to be United Nations ambassador, if only to embarrass Democrats by putting a spotlight on their decision to block his confirmation.

But Democrats, undaunted, said they would continue to block any vote until the White House provided information they were seeking relating to Mr. Bolton's tenure at the State Department, where he served until recently as under secretary for arms control. "Instead of calling the vote," said Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, "Senator Frist ought to call the White House."

Though there are several sticking points, the central issue is Mr. Bolton's review of names of American individuals and companies mentioned in communications intercepted by the National Security Agency. Democrats at first sought a complete list of the names, but recently narrowed the request and asked the White House to compare a list of about 36 "names of concern," which have not been publicly disclosed, against those Mr. Bolton reviewed.

The White House has refused to do so, and negotiations have been fruitless. Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas, the Republican chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, tried to broker a compromise last week. On Tuesday, however, he sent a letter to two leading Democrats saying he could not "support a request which suggests that three dozen names are pertinent to the intercept issue."

However,

No Progress on Bolton Effort
Nomination May Be Losing Ground, Key Democrat Warns

By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, June 15, 2005; Page A04

A key Democratic senator warned yesterday that the Bush administration may be losing ground in its bid to confirm John R. Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations, as the White House continued to rebuff Democrats' request for documents related to the nominee.

Senate GOP leaders, acknowledging no apparent progress on Bolton, said they will call for another vote to end debate in a renewed effort to portray Democrats as obstructionists, probably this week. But one of the three Democrats who sided with them on an unsuccessful "cloture" vote on May 26, Sen. Mark Pryor (Ark.), said he may abandon the Republicans, leaving them farther from their goal than they were three weeks ago.

If Democrats "continue being reasonable [in their requests] and the White House won't provide the information, I want to reserve the right to change my vote," Pryor told reporters.

Some Republican lawmakers expressed dismay that the effort to confirm Bolton, an outspoken conservative who has sharply criticized the United Nations, remains so difficult. Critics have cited his beratings of State Department subordinates who differed with him, but the most recent sticking point has involved Democratic requests for documents concerning Bolton's work activities.

Frist doesn't have the votes and he knows it.

Globalization

Cholera is back in Kabul, TB is on the rise in Iraq. Disease is war's handmaiden. In an interconnected, globalized society, this stuff is a global problem and only one airplane passenger away.

Fixing the Blame, Not the Problem

Bush blasts Democrats for 'agenda of road block'

By Adam Entous | June 14, 2005

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush on Tuesday unleashed his harshest criticism yet on Democrats for thwarting his second-term agenda, demanding they put forward ideas of their own or "step aside" and signaling a more aggressive administration strategy of attack.

With approval ratings the lowest of his presidency and critics suggesting he is already losing political clout, Bush blamed "do-nothing" Democrats for holding up an overhaul of Social Security and delaying votes on his nominees to the federal bench and the United Nations.

The assault highlighted administration frustrations over Democratic tactics, and offered a preview of Republican strategy in the run-up to the 2006 mid-term elections.

"On issue after issue, they (the Democrats) stand for nothing except obstruction," Bush said at the annual President's Dinner, a $23 million fund-raiser attended by Republican leaders, party donors, and a blond porn star and former California gubernatorial candidate named Mary Carey.

Bush accused Democratic leaders of trying to "delay solutions" and "obstruct progress."

The speech marked a combative turn for the president, who declared two days after winning re-election last November that he had earned "political capital, and now I intend to spend it."

Much of Bush's legislative agenda has run into opposition, and critics point to the administration's recent troubles keeping fellow Republicans on board as a sign Bush may soon become a lame duck.

Right. It's the Democrat's fault that Bush's approval ratings are down the swirly. Blame the otherside when every single one of your policy initiatives turns out to be a disaster. Yeah, that'll work.

This is desperation, Rove has nothing in the face of complete disaster which is all he's got.

Failing the Eye Test

Senators and Administration Spar Over North Korea Policy

By BRIAN KNOWLTON
Published: June 14, 2005

WASHINGTON, June 14 - Two senior senators, a Republican and a Democrat, pointedly criticized American policy on North Korea today, saying that it was inconsistent, ineffective and undercut efforts to revive stalled talks with Pyongyang by giving the impression that its real aim was regime change.

But the top American official involved in the six-party talks on North Korea, Christopher Hill, the assistant secretary for East Asia, defended the Bush administration's approach and indicated that there were no plans to soften the tone.

Addressing the criticism leveled by the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Richard Lugar, Republican of Indiana, and that panel's ranking Democrat, Joseph Biden of Delaware, Mr. Hill said the administration would be "a little stubborn" on its strategy.

"We have made very clear that if the regime in North Korea feels it's going to be safer or will do better with nuclear weapons," Mr. Hill said a committee hearing, "it's very much operating under a false assumption."

"While we don't think time is on our side," he added, "it's not on their side, either."

Mr. Lugar and Mr. Biden indicated that their criticism reflected frustration and division within the administration over how to proceed with efforts to stop North Korea's nuclear program at a time when Pyongyang had stayed away from the six-party talks for a year. While North Korea said last week that it would return to the talks, which include China, Japan, Russia and South Korea, as well as the United States and North Korea, it did not agree to a date.

Mr. Lugar, generally restrained in his criticisms, suggested that Bush administration officials appeared so divided on North Korea as to be at cross purposes.

"Although I understand that there may be a need for some ambiguity in United States policy toward North Korea," he said, "it is not evident this ambiguity has been constructive or even intentional."

Senator, it's bullshit, call it that.

Bushco doesn't have a clue about what to do with PRK. They don't really have a clue about what to do with most things: beyond invading Iraq, these people never had a plan for anything and don't to this day.

Americans elected a man who is completely incapable and unwilling to run the US and they are getting increasingly restive about it.

As I recall, Mr. Lugar and Mr. Biden both voted for the Iraq war resolution. I can hardly call either man a "serious" foreign policy manager with such a track record.

The Vision Thing

This is how we are spreading democracy, which is on the march.'

Kurdish Officials Sanction Abductions in Kirkuk
U.S. Memo Says Arabs, Turkmens Secretly Sent to the North

By Steve Fainaru and Anthony Shadid
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, June 15, 2005; Page A01

KIRKUK, Iraq -- Police and security units, forces led by Kurdish political parties and backed by the U.S. military, have abducted hundreds of minority Arabs and Turkmens in this intensely volatile city and spirited them to prisons in Kurdish-held northern Iraq, according to U.S. and Iraqi officials, government documents and families of the victims.

Seized off the streets of Kirkuk or in joint U.S.-Iraqi raids, the men have been transferred secretly and in violation of Iraqi law to prisons in the Kurdish cities of Irbil and Sulaymaniyah, sometimes with the knowledge of U.S. forces. The detainees, including merchants, members of tribal families and soldiers, have often remained missing for months; some have been tortured, according to released prisoners and the Kirkuk police chief.

A confidential State Department cable, obtained by The Washington Post and addressed to the White House, Pentagon and U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, said the "extra-judicial detentions" were part of a "concerted and widespread initiative" by Kurdish political parties "to exercise authority in Kirkuk in an increasingly provocative manner."

The abductions have "greatly exacerbated tensions along purely ethnic lines" and endangered U.S. credibility, the nine-page cable, dated June 5, stated. "Turkmen in Kirkuk tell us they perceive a U.S. tolerance for the practice while Arabs in Kirkuk believe Coalition Forces are directly responsible."

The cable said the 116th Brigade Combat Team, which oversees security in Kirkuk, had urged Kurdish officials to end the practice. "I can tell you that the coalition forces absolutely do not condone it," Brig. Gen. Alan Gayhart, the brigade commander, said in an interview.

Oh, yeah. This is gonna work.

You Want Fries With That?

USDA was pushed to test again
Another check for mad cow leads to 'weak positive'
By DAVID IVANOVICH
Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Agriculture Department, investigating a possible case of mad cow disease in an animal previously declared free of the ailment, conducted more tests only after being urged to do so by an inspector general.

Forced to backpedal on a pronouncement last November that an elderly cow — reportedly discovered in Texas — did not have the brain-wasting disease, USDA officials are now working to devise new procedures to re-examine the small amount of testable material that remains.

A sample will also be sent to a Weybridge, England, lab that developed expertise in the field during the outbreak of mad cow disease in Britain in the late 1980s.

"By performing additional testing, USDA hopes to learn the true nature of this unusual case," department officials said in a statement Monday. The results are expected to be announced within a couple weeks.

News of another possible case of mad cow disease — the first was confirmed back in late 2003 — sent cattle prices in Chicago down to their lowest level in 13 months, Bloomberg News reported. Cattle futures for August delivery dropped 1.775 cents, or 2.2 percent, to close at 80.35 cents a pound on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange.

The cow in question was one of more than 375,000 animals tested for bovine spongiform encephalopathy or mad cow disease since June 2004, when the United States launched a stepped-up screening program.

Identified as a possible risk because it could not walk on its own, the cow was tested for the disease and destroyed before it entered the food chain.

Initially, the animal tested positive. USDA officials then conducted a second, more elaborate analysis known as the immunohistochemistry, or IHC test, to check the screening test. The results were negative.

Officials likewise conducted IHC tests on two other animals whose initial tests had produced "inconclusive" results. Again, the confirmation test showed no evidence of the disease.

But regulators did not perform another kind of analysis, known as the Western blot test, that is used in many countries to detect this disease.

The IHC test is internationally recognized and is "equally effective" as the Western blot test for detecting the disease, USDA officials say.

Some food safety groups, however, insist the Western blot test has been shown to be more sensitive.

Earlier this month, the Agriculture Department's Inspector General's Office, which has been monitoring the government's mad-cow screening, recommended samples from the three cows be tested again, using the Western blot procedure, USDA officials revealed.

A spokesman for the Inspector General's Office did not return repeated calls.

A concentrated sample from the cow whose first test had shown positive then generated what USDA officials are calling a "weak positive" for the disease using the Western blot method.

Cow from Texas?
USDA officials continued Monday to provide only scanty details about the cow. They refused, for instance, to confirm reports the animal was found in Texas.

Bob Hillman, executive director of the Texas Animal Health Commission, said he did not know if the animal was from the Lone Star State.

Hillman said officials do believe the cow was born in the United States. A cow in Washington state found to have the disease back in 2003 had been imported from Canada.

USDA officials have not revealed the exact age of the problematic cow, but they noted it was born before August 1997 — the effective date on a ban on the use of certain feed believed to be capable of transmitting the disease.

Let's look at a little backstory here, shall we? Under pressure from the beef industry, USDA tests a fraction of the beef tested by other beef producing states. Ag has always been understaffed, and that hasn't gotten any better under Bushco, who's tendency to secrecy is only making the situation worse. Give the asians (who have an impressive testing regime) an excuse to block imports and that same US cattle industry will discover how short-sighted they've been.

Think about that for a minute before you bite into your next burger. And here's another thought: the US is a net importer of ground beef, much of it coming from central and south american counties whose ag departments are even sketchier than ours.

I'm a red meat Democrat from the mid-west, raised on that corn fed beef from the stockyards down the street (literally) from my childhood home. I love beef (rare, please) but eat it rarely anymore: I moved to the organic stuff years ago to get away from the scary bad feed commercial steers get, now I'm looking to go local. It's an expensive way to buy beef, but the food supply is getting to be one of the more predictable ways to make yourself sick and I want to improve my odds. Local beef isn't dressed in huge factories where disease vectors are commingled. At this point, beef is a luxury good I eat rarely, paying the premium price for safety isn't a sacrifice.

Mushroom Cloud

Conservative's popularity may be problem for GOP
Ex-Alabama judge eyes governorship

By Nina Easton, Globe Staff | June 14, 2005

WASHINGTON -- As Republican strategists weigh the party's prospects for 2006 and 2008, they are increasingly worried about a political confrontation with Roy S. Moore, the former chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court who became a hero to religious conservatives when he refused to follow a federal court order to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the state's judicial building.

Moore, a Republican who enjoys widespread support in his home state, is poised to run against a vulnerable Republican governor. If he wins, some party strategists speculate, he could defy a federal court order again by erecting a religious monument outside the Alabama state Capitol building. With the 2008 presidential race looming, President Bush would then face a no-win decision: either call out the National Guard to enforce a court order against a religious display on state grounds or allow a fellow born-again Christian to defy the courts.

The pitched political warfare over the direction of the nation's courts has energized many GOP voters, but it has also produced a restless Christian right movement that contends Bush has been too moderate on issues ranging from gay marriage to judicial nominations to the Terri Schiavo case. These conservatives want Moore to run for president as a platform for their cause.

''Moore's a lot like George Wallace," William H. Stewart, political science professor at the University of Alabama, said in a reference to the Democratic Alabama governor who stood in a schoolhouse door to block a federal desegregation order, forcing President Kennedy to federalize and send in Alabama National Guard units.

Moore is adroitly using his newfound celebrity over the Ten Commandments controversy to build a national following. Earlier this year, he was among the Christian conservatives who angrily asserted that Governor Jeb Bush of Florida should have used his executive powers to override a string of court orders and save the life of the brain-damaged Schiavo. Some even wanted the governor to use police force to rescue her.

They also contend the president should have done more than sign legislation giving Schiavo's parents new legal recourse, and they were infuriated when he distanced himself from fellow conservatives, including the House majority leader, Tom DeLay of Texas, who said activist judges in such cases should be investigated and impeached.

Polls indicate that Moore, a 58-year-old graduate of West Point, has a good shot at beating Governor Bob Riley in next year's Republican primary. Riley angered conservatives by signing the largest tax increase in Alabama history in an effort to get the state's fiscal house in order and make the tax code more progressive. ''There's enough people in Alabama clamoring for him [Moore] to run that I don't see that he has much choice," said Baptist minister Rick Scarborough, who chairs the Judeo-Christian Council for Constitutional Restoration.

This is the background noise facing the GOP as we move into the midterm election cycle. Bush hate is coming from more than the left.

Bush is using judicial nominations to throw some red meat to the base because he and the congressional Repubs can't do it legislatively without turning themselves into the minority party for the forseeable future. Polling shows that a conclusive majority of Americans support at least limited abortion rights and disapprove of congressional and presidential action on the Schiavo case. Republicans can read the polling data as well as I can.

Of course, the real prize for the hard right will be a Supreme Court appointment. If you think you know all about "the nuclear option," you ain't seen nothing yet.

Leadership Down

Applications Drop at Military Academies

Reuters
Tuesday, June 14, 2005; Page A02

Applications from high school students to the three U.S. military academies dropped this year, officials said yesterday, at the same time the Army is struggling to sign up new recruits.

Applications to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y., which produces junior officers for the Army, declined 9.3 percent compared with last year, the academy said. Applications were down 20 percent from a year ago at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis and down 22.7 percent at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs.

Attending one of the academies involves at least a nine-year commitment to the military. Those who attend the four-year schools get free tuition, room and board, and commit to at least five years of active-duty service after graduating.

I'll be following this one. This is nothing more than a blip from Reuters and not much of a surprise if you think about it for two seconds.

The Players

Corridors of Power

By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Tuesday, June 14, 2005; 8:54 AM

President Bush's decision to put three of his top White House aides in Cabinet posts set off a cascade of promotions, replacements and office moves in his second-term West Wing.

As a result, there's a whole new cast of characters in the most powerful place on Earth -- as well as a big new office right near the president for Karl Rove.

So who's sitting where? My newly updated West Wing floor plan , unique on the Internet, is out today. (The super-wonks out there will enjoy comparing it with the old, circa Jan. 2004 version .)

Consider just some of the second-term moves:

With Condoleezza Rice off to the State Department, her title and office as national security adviser went to former deputy Steve Hadley. Hadley, after moving across the hall, turned his old job and office over to J.D. Crouch.

After former White House counsel Alberto Gonzales went to the Justice Department, deputy chief of staff Harriet Miers took his old job as well as his spacious digs on the second floor.

And Claude Allen now has Education Secretary Margaret Spellings' old job as chief domestic policy adviser, along with all her corner windows right above the Oval Office.

But the most talked-about West Wing move came when Bush announced in February that Rove, already the president's senior adviser, would get the additional title of deputy chief of staff -- and with it, the prime piece of real estate formerly occupied by Miers.

Rove said goodbye to his modest second-floor office (the one formerly occupied by Hillary Clinton) and hello to a larger space downstairs, just a few steps away from the Oval Office.

Kristen Silverberg, who serves as adviser to the chief of staff, moved into the highly karmic former Rove-Clinton digs.

The people whose offices are closest to the Oval Office are Bush's personal aide, Blake Gottesman, and his new secretary, Karen Keller.

Hand in hand with Mike Gerson's promotion from chief speechwriter to policy adviser came a move downstairs, losing a window but gaining proximity to the president.

Among the most recent arrivals to the West Wing are domestic policy adviser Tevi Troy, a former campaign and White House aide who in 2002 wrote a book called "Intellectuals and the American Presidency: Philosophers, Jesters, or Technicians?"; and deputy counsel Bill Kelley, a Notre Dame law professor who was part of special prosecutor Kenneth Starr's legal team.

Other than Bush and Vice President Cheney, only two members of the senior staff have stayed put the whole time since the Bush team arrived in 2001: Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. and his deputy chief for operations, Joseph Hagin.

And finally, things are still somewhat in motion, as personnel director Dina Powell is expected to head over to the State Department soon to work on the administration's public diplomacy efforts.

Consider this the program, and the links are the pictures. You can't tell the players without a program.

Froomkin will be Live Online tomorrow at 1, and I'll be there. Add your questions in comments and I'll try to ask them if you can't be there yourself. Dan is one of the canniest reporters in DC. I'd kill to have a drink with him.

The Passionate People

Next Generation of Conservatives (By the Dormful)
By JASON DePARLE

WASHINGTON, June 13 - They are young and bright and ardently right. They tack Ronald Reagan calendars on their cubicle walls and devote brown bag lunches to the free market theories of Friedrich von Hayek. They come from 51 colleges and 28 states, calling for low taxes, strong defense and dorm rooms with a view.

And let's get one thing straight: they're not here to run the copying machine.

The summer interns of the Heritage Foundation have arrived, forming an elite corps inside the capital's premier conservative research group. The 64 interns are each paid a 10-week stipend of $2,500, and about half are housed in a subsidized dorm at the group's headquarters, complete with a fitness room.

Unusual in its size (and in its walk-in closets), the program, on which Heritage spends $570,000 a year, is both a coveted spot on the young conservative circuit and an example of the care the movement takes to cultivate its young.

Scott Hurff, a senior at Wake Forest University, wanted the internship so badly that he filed three applications. Rachael Seidenschnur had set her eyes on Heritage since her youth in Little Rock, Ark., where she revived the teenage Republicans club at Central High School.

Kenneth Cribb came with family ties and a book by the conservative author Russell Kirk, which he said "sends chills up my spine." Daren Stanaway and Brian Christiansen welcomed Heritage as an escape from the liberal orthodoxies they said they experienced at Harvard and Yale.

"In the face of derogation, many intelligent young conservatives have simply responded by hiding their beliefs or going with the crowd," Ms. Stanaway wrote in an application essay. "I refuse to be one of them."

Like all Heritage applicants, she also answered a 12-item questionnaire designed to ferret out latent liberalism with questions about guns, abortion, welfare and missile defense. (If you agree with the statement that "tax increases are the most appropriate way to balance the budget," this is probably not the internship for you.)

Sitting in his supersized office atop the organization he has spent three decades building, Edwin J. Feulner, the longtime president at Heritage, cited the sign over a Heritage auditorium - "Building for the Next Generation" - as evidence of how central to his mission leadership development is.

"If we can get young people involved, they will continue to support Heritage, our idea and our causes," Mr. Feulner said. "We almost think of ourselves as a college."

Arguing that liberals dominate most campuses, Mr. Feulner said, "We've had to cultivate our alternative."

It is an alternative with few rivals. The Brookings Institution, a centrist group more than 50 years older than Heritage, has no paid interns. Neither does the Progressive Policy Institute, which promotes a centrist version of liberalism. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a premier antipoverty group, has 10 paid interns. People for the American Way, a bulwark of Beltway liberalism, has 40 - but no dorm.

This is how you build depth on the bench.

Here's a piece of sociology which goes with this: it is far easier to build cohesiveness in a group which regards itself as a beleagured minority. People who perceive themselves as attacked will pull together faster than those who don't feel threatened. Conservatives foster a culture of grievance because it works.

This isn't just a battle of ideas, it is a battle of cultures and worldviews, and the liberal side hasn't figured that out yet. As Gilliard likes to say, we are still carrying knives to a gunfight.

The Story

The Madrassa Myth

By PETER BERGEN and SWATI PANDEY
Published: June 14, 2005

Washington

It is one of the widespread assumptions of the war on terrorism that the Muslim religious schools known as madrassas, catering to families that are often poor, are graduating students who become terrorists. Last year, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell denounced madrassas in Pakistan and several other countries as breeding grounds for "fundamentalists and terrorists." A year earlier, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld had queried in a leaked memorandum, "Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?"

While madrassas may breed fundamentalists who have learned to recite the Koran in Arabic by rote, such schools do not teach the technical or linguistic skills necessary to be an effective terrorist. Indeed, there is little or no evidence that madrassas produce terrorists capable of attacking the West. And as a matter of national security, the United States doesn't need to worry about Muslim fundamentalists with whom we may disagree, but about terrorists who want to attack us.

We examined the educational backgrounds of 75 terrorists behind some of the most significant recent terrorist attacks against Westerners. We found that a majority of them are college-educated, often in technical subjects like engineering. In the four attacks for which the most complete information about the perpetrators' educational levels is available - the World Trade Center bombing in 1993, the attacks on the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, the 9/11 attacks, and the Bali bombings in 2002 - 53 percent of the terrorists had either attended college or had received a college degree. As a point of reference, only 52 percent of Americans have been to college. The terrorists in our study thus appear, on average, to be as well educated as many Americans.

The 1993 World Trade Center attack involved 12 men, all of whom had a college education. The 9/11 pilots, as well as the secondary planners identified by the 9/11 commission, all attended Western universities, a prestigious and elite endeavor for anyone from the Middle East. Indeed, the lead 9/11 pilot, Mohamed Atta, had a degree from a German university in, of all things, urban preservation, while the operational planner of 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, studied engineering in North Carolina. We also found that two-thirds of the 25 hijackers and planners involved in 9/11 had attended college.

Of the 75 terrorists we investigated, only nine had attended madrassas, and all of those played a role in one attack - the Bali bombing. Even in this instance, however, five college-educated "masterminds" - including two university lecturers - helped to shape the Bali plot.

Like the view that poverty drives terrorism - a notion that countless studies have debunked - the idea that madrassas are incubating the next generation of terrorists offers the soothing illusion that desperate, ignorant automatons are attacking us rather than college graduates, as is often the case. In fact, two of the terrorists in our study had doctorates from Western universities, and two others were working toward their Ph.D.

A World Bank-financed study that was published in April raises further doubts about the influence of madrassas in Pakistan, the country where the schools were thought to be the most influential and the most virulently anti-American. Contrary to the numbers cited in the report of the 9/11 commission, and to a blizzard of newspaper reports that 10 percent of Pakistani students study in madrassas, the study's authors found that fewer than 1 percent do so. If correct, this estimate would suggest that there are far more American children being home-schooled than Pakistani boys attending madrassas.

Call me a cynic, but I'm not much impressed by the "Global War on Terror." The Bushists offer us a narrative for it, but they don't ever seem to get much right. I'm willing to listen to voices like Bergen's who offer an alternative view.

The Bush narrative is super simplistic, as always. This is much more complex than they understand.

DSM

The Second Memo

By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Monday, June 13, 2005; 4:00 PM

A second British memo from 2002 emerged over the weekend chronicling how senior officials there saw the Bush administration as bent on war in Iraq and inattentive to postwar consequences.

Just last week, the MSM (that's mainstream media) turned its attention to the first DSM (that's Downing Street Memo) in earnest. (See my June 8 column for background.)

The new memo (can we call it DSM-II?) comes at a particularly bad time for Bush, as polls show that public sentiment is turning sharply against the war.

Whether you read the memos as a reminder of how the Bush administration was relentless in its drive to confront Saddam Hussein -- or whether you read them as evidence of cynical, deliberate and misguided manipulation -- the White House would much rather you weren't thinking about Iraq at all this week--it is focusing public attention on domestic issues instead.

And the Michael Jackson trial just happened to comply (along with the silly MSM.)

Thinkprogress has the whole suite of Downing Street Memos. Go read.

Self-Delusion

The Right Conversation for America

By Fred Hiatt

Monday, June 13, 2005; Page A19

The United States and this administration in particular continually assert the moral right to behave differently than other nations. We will not be bound by the International Criminal Court. We insist that other nations give up their nuclear weapons while we keep our own. We wage war without U.N. Security Council approval. We publish annual report cards on everyone else's human rights records.

The premise of this highhandedness is that the United States is, on balance, a force for good in the world -- a superpower that uses its might not to subjugate others but to allow them to live freely. This is a premise that The Post's editorial page on the whole accepts -- to the dismay of many readers.

But any nation asserting such a high calling will be judged by an equally high standard. Are we better than the beheaders, the mass killers, the U.N. peacekeepers raping young girls in the Congo? That's not close to the right question.

Do we behave as well as we claim, as we should, as we expect of others? That's the beginning of the right conversation -- and why it's fair to write more editorials about exceedingly mild Koran abuse at Guantanamo Bay than about the unspeakable mass graves of Hilla.

As has been noted here, in my voice and that of Bill Lind's, among others, whoever loses the moral argument for war has lost the war. The situation is far more dire than Hiatt makes it out.

Taking Exclusivity to the Max

Developers Plan to Exclude Sex Offenders From Homes

LUBBOCK, Tex. -- The sales pitch for the planned Milwaukee Ridge subdivision goes beyond the usual vision of attractive homes and amenities: Homebuyers will be required to pass criminal background checks, and no convicted sex offenders will be allowed.

The idea was inspired by the killings of two Florida girls -- Jessica Lunsford, 9, and Sarah Lunde, 13 -- allegedly by registered sex offenders, partner Clayton Isom said.

Isom and the other two developers own a 213-acre parcel and plan to subdivide it for 665 houses that will be priced from $100,000 to $150,000.

Builders agreeing to the terms will run background checks on buyers and any juveniles expected to live in the homes. They could be penalized if they sell, even unknowingly, to a convicted sex offender.

Residents will face penalties if they allow a convicted sex offender to live in their homes and will be responsible for checking the backgrounds of potential buyers if they sell. The developers promise to buy a home back for 85 percent of the lesser of the appraised or market value if builders sell to an offender or if an owner or a resident is convicted of a sex offense.

The proposed ban appears to be legal, according to the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Sex offenders are not a protected class under the Fair Housing Act, HUD spokesman Jerry Brown said.

This is taking the whole "gated community" idea to a new level. I imagine DavidByron will have plenty to say.

Democracy. Whiskey. Sexy.

Liberal Basra pushed to the right

Rory Carroll in Basra
Monday June 13, 2005
The Guardian

Sheikh Abdul al-Bahadli, a firebrand cleric with an artistic bent, drew a tree on a notepad. It was not a bad sketch. After a pause his pen returned to the pad and drew a box around the tree. "Is it not more beautiful if it is put in a frame?" he asked.

This was not an invitation to discuss aesthetics, but an argument for women wearing the Islamic headscarf known as the hijab. It was also a justification for the transformation of Basra and southern Iraq.

Since the US-led invasion toppled Saddam Hussein two years ago, this city with a long liberal tradition and the surrounding provinces have fallen under the sway of conservative Islam.

Alcohol shops have been burnt, women have been encouraged to wear the veil and music has been banned in many places. Prostitution has gone underground. A student picnic was viciously attacked because the male and female undergraduates mingled.

Mr Bahadli, an ally of the influential cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, said music and television must not excite the wrong emotions. "Mozart yes, Michael Jackson no."

Religious parties with links to Iran won the election in January and, by the admission of Basra's chief of police, their militias largely control the city, raising the spectre of what has been dubbed "Shiastan", a swath of Iraq under the sway of Shia clerics.

Repressed for decades, the Shia majority is now ascendant and leads the government in Baghdad. Kurds are strong in the north and Sunni Arabs are strong in the centre.

But in the south Shias are largely unchallenged and conservatives in parties like Dawa and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq think their time has come.

British soldiers who patrol the region enjoy relative peace, but critics say that tranquillity has been bought by ceding authority to the religious parties. One senior western official was sanguine about the south's prospects: "I don't think we will end up with Iran or with Dubai, it will be somewhere in between."

Keeping pluralism alive, say secular liberals, is now a battle for Iraq's soul. They ask to what extent tolerance has been eroded and whether the religious tide will rise higher.

Basra's women are worried. Few now dare to drive. "Anyone who tells you there is democracy and freedom here is lying," said Entisar, 45, a sales clerk, tapping her hijab. "I have no choice but to wear this. It is not safe without it."

Many wear the hijab voluntarily, but resent the fact that since the invasion it has become risky to wear make-up and high heels. Eman, 35, has perfect vision, but wears non-prescription spectacles to deflect men's gazes.

Is it possible to read about an Islamic cleric without having the descriptor "firebrand" in front of his name?

I think we can know safely put to bed any bullshit about Bush improving the lot of women in Iraq.

Anti-War

They Won't Go

By BOB HERBERT
Published: June 13, 2005

The Army is so desperate for even lukewarm bodies that it is reluctant to release even problem soldiers, troops who are seriously out of shape, or pregnant, or abusing alcohol or drugs. And it is lowering standards for admission to the junior officer ranks. For example, minor criminal offenses that previously would have been prohibitive can now be overlooked.

At the same time Army recruiters have been chasing high school kids with such reckless abandon that a backlash is developing among parents who, in many cases, want the recruiters kept out of their children's schools.

"To the extent that we think students are threatened by recruiters, it's our job to intervene," said Amy Hagopian, a co-chair of the Parent-Teacher-Student Association at Garfield High School in Seattle. Ms. Hagopian, who has an 18-year-old son, complained that recruiters too often put the hard sell on impressionable high school youngsters without informing them of the potential dangers of a life in the military.

Recruiters with the gift of gab go into the schools with a glamorous pitch, bags full of goodies for the kids (T-shirts, donuts, key chains) and a litany of promises they often can't keep. The kids don't hear much about their chances of being maimed or killed, or the trauma that often results from killing someone else.

(A soldier's job is to kill. I can still hear the drill sergeants in basic training screaming at us decades ago: "What are you? What are you?" And we'd scream back: "Killers! Killers!" And the sergeants would say, "What is your purpose?" And we would shout: "To kill! To kill!")

The Army, frantically searching for solutions, is offering enlistments as short as 15 months and considering bonuses worth up to $40,000. But it may be facing a problem too difficult for any amount of money to overcome. Americans are catching on to the hideousness and apparent futility of the war in Iraq. Five marines were killed in a single bomb attack in western Iraq on Thursday. On Friday, a front-page Washington Post headline described the effort to rebuild the Iraqi military as "Mission Improbable."

A Washington Post-ABC News poll last week found that nearly three-quarters of Americans believe the number of casualties in Iraq is unacceptable, and 60 percent believe the war was not worth fighting.

There's something frankly embarrassing about a government offering trinkets to children to persuade them to go off and fight - and perhaps die - in a war that their nation should never have started in the first place. It's highly questionable whether most high school kids are equipped to make an informed decision about joining the military, which is exactly why they're targeted. The additional knowledge and maturity gained in the first few years after high school make it easier for a young man or woman to make a wiser, more meaningful choice, pro or con.

The parents of the kids being sought by recruiters to fight this unpopular war are creating a highly vocal and potentially very effective antiwar movement. In effect, they're saying to their own children: hell no, you won't go.

I've read much commentary about how few anti-war demonstrations there have been to protest the Iraq war. My generation, now aging boomers, were the fuel behind the anti-Viet Nam war protest of the late 1960's and '70's. We're still anti-war, we just have much more effective ways to make that protest. Keeping our kids out of the military is the one thing we can do. Why hit the streets when you can cripple the Pentagon over the dinner table?

"Expert" Testimony

Today in Iraq's Friendly Fire caught this exchange yesterday on Press the Meat. I heard it, too, but didn't believe my ears.

You go to War with the Politicians you have

I was doing some research for tomorrow's news post and I came across this, and I feel it's worth a separate thread in itself:

This man is a Republican Representative. He is Vice Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Vice Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee and he is the author of "Countdown to Terror: The Top-Secret Information that Could Prevent the Next Terrorist Attack on America...and How the CIA has Ignored It"

Today on Meet the Press this "expert" politician had this to say:

REP. WELDON: I've been raising this issue for the past two years. Iran is a major player. Ayatollah Khomeini, not the Iranian people, because they're not the problem. Ayatollah Khomeini's the problem. And he has a separate council of nine that's been fomenting unrest in Iraq during this entire time, and that's what's increasing. That's what's increasing dramatically as we attempt to stabilize the country.

MR. RUSSERT: Do you think we're in the last throes of the insurgency?

REP. WELDON: No, I don't. I think Iran is going to continue to escalate their building support so eventually, whatever government there takes hold is going to have to deal with Iran and eventually become a partner of Iran.

Mr Weldon, expert that you are, Ayatollah Khomeini died in June 1989.

Mr Weldon, expert that you are, please advise us of the Iranian assisted insurgency?

A Roof Over Your Head

No Slowdown in Housing Market Seen, Report Says

By Kirstin Downey
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, June 13, 2005; Page A02

People in Washington may be talking about whether there is a housing bubble ready to burst, but Harvard University economists see little reason for homeowner gloom: U.S. home prices have been climbing for 13 years, with the rise in 2004 the largest annual jump since 1979, according to a new report from the university's Joint Center for Housing Studies.

Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan last week warned that home prices in some areas are "unsustainable." In a report to be released today, however, the Harvard economists say the market continues to be fueled by easy credit, low interest rates, affluent baby boomers buying second homes and the continued growth of immigration. Moreover, thanks to an expanding economy, regulatory constraints and a limited supply of land for development, they see no sign of a slowdown.

"The muscularity and potency of this market continues to amaze," said Nicolas P. Retsinas, the center's director and a former assistant secretary for housing at the of Housing and Urban Development Department.

Most housing indicators set records in 2004, the report noted, including the homeownership rate, new home sales, existing home sales and single-family housing starts.

But some Americans have been left out of the party, according to the report. Renters face a diminishing supply of apartments because rental-housing construction fell to a 10-year low in 2004 and affordable units that are being demolished to make way for high-end condominiums are not being replaced, according to the report. Many renters can't afford the new units being constructed. About half of renters now face "severe cost burdens," the report said.

However, there are fewer renters because homeownership has risen to a record high of 69 percent of households, as renters took advantage of lower interest rates to get a foothold in the housing market.

The price increases in the purchase market have caused particular anguish for would-be first-time homeowners, particularly those living in high-priced markets such as Southern California, New York, Washington and Florida coasts. In 33 of the nation's 110 metropolitan areas, median home prices now are about four times median incomes. Land constraints in many of those cities make it likely that the regions will have "permanently higher prices," the report said.

"There's increasing distance between the housing haves and have-nots," Retsinas said.

Lessee, I bought this 900 sf condo 10 years ago for $137,500. It appraised in February for $290K, and last week a comp went on the market for $415K. But there is no bubble....

Wishful Thinking

As Iraqi Army Trains, Word in the Field Is It May Take Years

By SABRINA TAVERNISE and JOHN F. BURNS
Published: June 13, 2005

Despite the Bush administration's insistent optimism, Americans working with the Iraqis in the field believe that it could be several years, at least, before the new Iraqi forces will be ready to stand alone against the insurgents.

A few days before the Mahmudiya raids, Iraqi soldiers at a local checkpoint apparently fell asleep in the hours before dawn, and the checkpoint was ambushed by insurgents. They tossed a grenade into the building, then stormed in and executed those left alive, killing at least eight Iraqis, American soldiers said. Since the attack, American troops have been conducting nighttime patrols to make sure the Iraqis stay awake.

The American command has already created military transition teams of soldiers to work with Iraqi troops, and there are plans for up to 10,000 Americans to be attached to Iraqi units at every level from divisions down to battalions and companies, with up to 10 men at the battalion level, and 2 with each company.

"I just wish they'd start to pull their own weight without us having to come out and baby-sit them all the time," said Sgt. Joshua Lower, a scout in the Third Brigade of the First Armored Division who has worked with the Iraqis. "Some Iraqi special forces really know what they are doing, but there are some units that scatter like cockroaches with the lights on when there's an attack."

The Iraqi troops' story is one of light and dark, American officers say. Especially in regions sympathetic to the insurgents, they have performed woefully, with Sunni Arab soldiers making little secret of their support for Saddam Hussein and their contempt for the Americans.

Among Shiite and Kurdish soldiers, the overwhelming majority in the new army, the Americans say, there are problems beyond loyalty - those inherent in building a new army, at breakneck speed, in the midst of a brutal war.

Let's get a little reality based, shall we? The locals are seen to be appendages of the occupying army, they are shot through with people working for the "insurgents," (local people resisting an occupying army). The occupying force doesn't hesitate to brutilize and torture the locals, which could kind of hurt efforts to recruit a native police/army force. Tavernise and Burns are taking dictation from the propaganda office of Centcom.

Big Brother Is Still Watching

CAFTA in Peril on Capitol Hill
One Business Leader Gives Lawmakers an Ultimatum

By Thomas B. Edsall
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, June 12, 2005; Page A06

With the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) in serious trouble, a prominent business leader recently laid it on the line: Business groups are prepared to cut off campaign contributions to House members who oppose the pact.

"If you [lawmakers] are going to vote against it, it's going to cost you," Thomas J. Donohue, president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, warned recently during a meeting on Capitol Hill of leaders of a 500-plus business-trade association coalition with more than 500 members.

President Bush has declared ratification of CAFTA his top trade priority of the year. The pact would create a NAFTA-like free-trade zone between the United States and five Central American countries plus the Caribbean's Dominican Republic.

But both sides agree that without a major push from the White House and the GOP leadership, CAFTA is likely to become the first major trade deal to be defeated in more than 40 years and a major embarrassment for the administration.

The administration recently dispatched high-profile officials -- including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Commerce Carlos M. Gutierrez, Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns and U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman -- to enlist support from House and Senate members.

Rep. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), who is coordinating the opposition among House Democrats, said the percentage voting against trade agreements has steadily grown from the 60 to 65 percent range in the early 1990s, and predicted 90 percent will oppose CAFTA.

"If the vote was held today, we would get 190 Democrats and somewhere in the vicinity of 40-plus Republicans," more than enough to defeat the measure, Brown said. Republican opponents of CAFTA are more cautious in their estimates.

The administration and GOP leaders are pushing for ratification of CAFTA before the July 4 recess. Matthew Niemeyer, assistant U.S. trade representative for congressional affairs, said that "we are in excellent position to successfully mark up this agreement" in the Senate Finance Committee this week. The major threat in the committee is that all the Democrats could line up with two Republicans, Michael D. Crapo (Idaho) and Craig Thomas (Wyo.), to pass a nonbinding but politically damaging amendment eliminating sugar provisions.

It's a bad bill and let's see if they can pull it off. Is Big Businesss really going to cut off the Repubs? Somehow, I doubt it. This will get re-cast.

The Legal Black Hole

U.S. Not Aiming to Shut Guantanamo Bay Prison

White House Reviewing Options, Cheney Says

By Marc Kaufman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, June 13, 2005; Page A02

Vice President Dick Cheney said Sunday that the administration has no plans to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as some prominent Democrats have recommended, but other Republicans said that reports of mistreatment of prisoners there have made the prison a growing global liability.

Additional information about aggressive interrogation tactics at Guantanamo surfaced Sunday that could heighten the debate further.

In remarks to be broadcast Monday on Fox News, Cheney said the administration was reviewing its options at the prison "on a continuous basis." But he defended its track record, saying, "The important thing here to understand is that the people that are at Guantanamo are bad people."

But Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) said that the situation in Guantanamo is one reason why the United States is "losing the image war around the world," and that closing the prison could help in that contest.

"It's identifiable with, for right or wrong, a part of America that people in the world believe is a power, an empire that pushes people around, we do it our way, we don't live up to our commitments to multilateral institutions," Hagel told CNN's "Late Edition." He said Defense Department leaders have not taken responsibility for the excesses at the prison, which have included controversial harsh treatment of prisoners and desecrations of the Koran.

There are about 540 inmates at Guantanamo -- most captured in Afghanistan or otherwise associated with al Qaeda. None of the inmates hasbeen charged, and some have been returned to their homes after it was determined -- sometimes years after they were captured -- that they did not pose any danger.

The Senate Judiciary Committee plans a hearing Wednesday on the issue of detainees.

"We've actually created a legal black hole there," said Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (Vt.), the committee's ranking Democrat, on CBS's "Face the Nation." "We're the country that tells people that we adhere to the rule of law. We want other countries to adhere to the rule of law. And in Guantanamo, we are not."

In the Bush worldview, the "rule of law" is a "quaint" concept for others to follow.

In the Tradition

I'm fighting a bug tonight, and I can't give you much more. I need to go to bed and let my body heal itself, today wasn't a lot of fun. You are all grownups here, so take care of each other. Be good to each other.

Peace,

Melanie

The Real Face of War

War: Realities and Myths
by Chris Hedges

"Force," Simon Weil wrote, "is as pitiless to the man who possess it, or thinks he does, as it is to his victim. The second it crushes; the first it intoxicates."

This myth, the lie, about war, about ourselves, is imploding our democracy. We shun introspection and self-criticism. We ignore truth, to embrace the strange, disquieting certitude and hubris offered by the radical Christian Right. These radical Christians draw almost exclusively from the book of Revelations, the only time in the Gospels where Jesus sanctions violence, peddling a vision of Christ as the head of a great and murderous army of heavenly avengers. They rarely speak about Christ's message of love, forgiveness and compassion. They relish the cataclysmic destruction that will befall unbelievers, including those such as myself, who they dismiss as "nominal Christians." They divide the world between good and evil, between those anointed to act as agents of God and those who act as agents of Satan. The cult of masculinity and esthetic of violence pervades their ideology. Feminism and homosexuality are forces, believers are told, that have rendered the American male physically and spiritually impotent. Jesus, for the Christian Right, is a man of action, casting out demons, battling the Anti-Christ, attacking hypocrites and castigating the corrupt. The language is one not only of exclusion, hatred and fear, but a call for apocalyptic violence, in short the language of war.

As the war grinds forward, as we sink into a morass of our own creation, as our press and political opposition, and yes even our great research universities, remain complacent and passive, as we refuse to confront the forces that have crippled us outside our gates and are working to cripple us within, the ideology of the Christian Right, so intertwined with intolerance and force, will become the way we speak not only to others but among ourselves.

In war, we always deform ourselves, our essence. We give up individual conscience – maybe even consciousness – for contagion of the crowd, the rush of patriotism, the belief that we must stand together as a nation in moments of extremity. To make a moral choice, to defy war's enticement, to find moral courage, can be self-destructive.
....
The most powerful antiwar testaments, of war and what war does to us, are those that eschew images of combat. It is the suffering of the veteran whose body and mind are changed forever because he or she served a nation that sacrificed them, the suffering of families and children caught up in the unforgiving maw of war, which begin to tell the story of war. But we are not allowed to see dead bodies, at least of our own soldiers, nor do we see the wounds that forever mark a life, the wounds that leave faces and bodies horribly disfigured by burns or shrapnel. We never watch the agony of the dying. War is made palatable. It is sanitized. We are allowed to taste war's perverse thrill, but spared from seeing war's consequences. The wounded and the dead are swiftly carted offstage. And for this I blame the press, which willingly hides from us the effects of bullets, roadside bombs and rocket-propelled grenades, which sat at the feet of those who lied to make this war possible and dutifully reported these lies and called it journalism.

War is always about this betrayal. It is about the betrayal of the young by the old, idealists by cynics and finally soldiers by politicians. Those who pay the price, those who are maimed forever by war, however, are crumpled up and thrown away. We do not see them. We do not hear them. They are doomed, like wandering spirits, to float around the edges of our consciousness, ignored, even reviled. The message they bring is too painful for us to hear. We prefer the myth of war, the myth of glory, honor, patriotism and heroism, words that in the terror and brutality of combat are empty, meaningless and obscene.

We are losing the war in Iraq. We are an isolated and reviled nation. We are pitiless to others weaker than ourselves. We have lost sight of our democratic ideals. Thucydides wrote of Athens' expanding empire and how this empire led it to become a tyrant abroad and then a tyrant at home. The tyranny Athens imposed on others, it finally imposed on itself. If we do not confront the lies and hubris told to justify the killing and mask the destruction carried out in our name in Iraq, if we do not grasp the moral corrosiveness of empire and occupation, if we continue to allow force and violence to be our primary form of communication, if we do not remove from power our flag-waving, cross-bearing versions of the Taliban, we will not so much defeat dictators such as Saddam Hussein as become them.

Hedges is the author of War is a Force That Gives Us Meaning, one of the most powerful anti-war texts that I have ever read. He is a lifelong war correspondent with a keen sense of his own connection to all humanity. This whole article is worth a read, I've given you only one thread of his presentation.

A Little Humility, Please

Don't Follow the Money

By FRANK RICH

Published: June 12,

Three years ago, on Watergate's 30th anniversary, an ABC News poll found that two-thirds of Americans couldn't explain what the scandal was, and no one was racing to enlighten them this time around. Vanity Fair may have taken the trouble to remind us that Watergate was a web of crime yielding the convictions and guilty pleas of more than 30 White House and Nixon campaign officials, but few others did. Watergate has gone back to being the "third-rate burglary" of Nixon administration spin. It is once again being covered up.

Not without reason. Had the scandal been vividly resuscitated as the long national nightmare it actually was, it would dampen all the Felt fun by casting harsh light on our own present nightmare. "The fundamental right of Americans, through our free press, to penetrate and criticize the workings of our government is under attack as never before" was how the former Nixon speech writer William Safire put it on this page almost nine months ago. The current administration, a second-term imperial presidency that outstrips Nixon's in hubris by the day, leads the attack, trying to intimidate and snuff out any Woodwards or Bernsteins that might challenge it, any media proprietor like Katharine Graham or editor like Ben Bradlee who might support them and any anonymous source like Deep Throat who might enable them to find what Carl Bernstein calls "the best obtainable version of the truth."

The attacks continue to be so successful that even now, long after many news organizations, including The Times, have been found guilty of failing to puncture the administration's prewar W.M.D. hype, new details on that same story are still being ignored or left uninvestigated. The July 2002 "Downing Street memo," the minutes of a meeting in which Tony Blair and his advisers learned of a White House effort to fix "the intelligence and facts" to justify the war in Iraq, was published by The London Sunday Times on May 1. Yet in the 19 daily Scott McClellan briefings that followed, the memo was the subject of only 2 out of the approximately 940 questions asked by the White House press corps, according to Eric Boehlert of Salon.

This is the kind of lapdog news media the Nixon White House cherished. To foster it, Nixon's special counsel, Charles W. Colson, embarked on a ruthless program of intimidation that included threatening antitrust action against the networks if they didn't run pro-Nixon stories. Watergate tapes and memos make Mr. Colson, who boasted of "destroying the old establishment," sound like the founding father of today's blogging lynch mobs. He exulted in bullying CBS to cut back its Watergate reports before the '72 election. He enlisted NBC in pro-administration propaganda by browbeating it to repackage 10-day-old coverage of Tricia Nixon's wedding as a prime-time special. It was the Colson office as well that compiled a White House enemies list that included journalists who had the audacity to question administration policies.

Such is the equivalently supine state of much of the news media today that Mr. Colson was repeatedly trotted out, without irony, to pass moral judgment on Mr. Felt - and not just on Fox News, the cable channel that is actually run by the former Nixon media maven, Roger Ailes. "I want kids to look up to heroes," Mr. Colson said, oh so sorrowfully, on NBC's "Today" show, condemning Mr. Felt for dishonoring "the confidence of the president of the United States." Never mind that Mr. Colson dishonored the law, proposed bombing the Brookings Institution and went to prison for his role in the break-in to steal the psychiatric records of The Times's Deep Throat on Vietnam, Daniel Ellsberg. The "Today" host, Matt Lauer, didn't mention any of this - or even that his guest had done jail time. None of the other TV anchors who interviewed Mr. Colson - and he was ubiquitous - ever specified his criminal actions in the Nixon years. Some identified him onscreen only as a "former White House counsel."

Wikipedia tells us:

Colson was born in Boston in 1931 and earned his B.A. from Brown University and his J.D., with honors, from George Washington University. Colson served in the Marine Corps from 1953 to 1955.

In 1969, Colson was appointed as Counsel to President Nixon. Colson also became involved in the Committee to Re-elect the President (CREEP). Known as President Nixon's hatchet man, he once bragged, "I’d walk over my own grandmother to re-elect Richard Nixon." At a CREEP meeting on March 21st, 1971, it was agreed to spend $250,000 on "intelligence gathering" on the Democratic Party. Colson and John Erhlichmann appointed E. Howard Hunt to the White House Special Operations Unit (the so-called "Plumbers"). Colson organized the Plumber's burglary of Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office in September 1971. Colson hoped that revelations about Ellsberg could be used to discredit the anti-war left.

In 1974 Colson pleaded nolo contendere (no contest) to obstruction of justice in the Ellsberg case. He was given a one-to-three year sentence. He served seven months in Maxwell Correctional Facility in Alabama.

And this guy gets treated as some sort of moral compass?

The "Honey-Do" List

Africa's Suffering Is Bush's Shame
# Millions are dying because of American policy.

By Jeffrey D. Sachs, Jeffrey D. Sachs is a Columbia University economist and special advisor to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan.

President Bush last week brazenly brushed aside British Prime Minister Tony Blair's call for a doubling of aid to Africa. Blair and other European leaders have taken on the task of fighting extreme poverty — and Bush watches from the sidelines. To justify its dereliction, the Bush administration perpetuates a mythology that contributes to the premature deaths of millions of people each year.

The U.S. is a generous provider of aid to Africa, the mythology says, but Africa is corrupt and mismanaged and thus cannot absorb more aid. In addition, there is no room in the budget to do any more than what we are currently doing. This multipart fantasy is widely shared in the U.S. and recalls Napoleon's dictum that "history is a fable often told."

The facts are otherwise. Total annual U.S. aid for all of Africa is about $3 billion, equivalent to about two days of Pentagon spending. About $1 billion pays for emergency food aid, of which half is for transport. About $1.5 billion is for "technical cooperation," essentially salaries of U.S. consultants. Only about $500 million a year — less than $1 per African — finances clinics, schools, food production, roads, power, Internet connectivity, safe drinking water, sanitation, family planning and lifesaving health interventions to fight malaria, AIDS and other diseases.

The myth that more aid would be squandered is pernicious. Once in a while, the industrialized countries try to accomplish something real in Africa. Notable examples are smallpox eradication begun in the 1960s, control of river blindness in the 1970s, increased child immunization in the 1980s, Jimmy Carter's initiatives to fight Guinea worm, trachoma and leprosy in the 1990s and Rotary International's bold efforts to eliminate polio this decade.

These interventions throughout Africa were remarkably successful. That they could be easily monitored was a key to their success. More victories could have been achieved — in food production, malaria control and AIDS treatment — if the efforts had been undertaken. Instead, U.S. aid was minuscule and misdirected into consultants' salaries and emergency food shipments.

If the administration were more than modestly interested in helping Africa, it could learn about the huge gains made possible by Blair's plan to provide about $50 billion a year to Africa by 2010 — with the U.S. kicking in $15 billion to $20 billion. With that money, Africa could control killer diseases, triple food production and cut hunger, and improve transportation and communications.

These steps, incidentally, would accelerate the continent's transition to lower fertility rates and slower population growth because they would contribute to a lower child mortality rate and economic gains, which would help persuade couples to have fewer children.

Sachs completely misses the point. Bush is acting on the will of the American people, who mistakenly think that 15% of our budget goes to foreign aid. It is less than 1%. Americans like foreign aid in the abstract, but actually paying for it is another matter. Since we don't seem to be interested in fixing poverty and homelessness here at home, I rather doubt that fixing up countries populated by black people is high on the public's list of things to do.

Erasures

U.S. Campaign Produces Few Convictions on Terrorism Charges
Statistics Often Count Lesser Crimes

By Dan Eggen and Julie Tate
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, June 12, 2005; Page A01

First of two parts

On Thursday, President Bush stepped to a lectern at the Ohio State Highway Patrol Academy in Columbus to urge renewal of the USA Patriot Act and to boast of the government's success in prosecuting terrorists.

Flanked by Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, Bush said that "federal terrorism investigations have resulted in charges against more than 400 suspects, and more than half of those charged have been convicted."

Those statistics have been used repeatedly by Bush and other administration officials, including Gonzales and his predecessor, John D. Ashcroft, to characterize the government's efforts against terrorism.

But the numbers are misleading at best.

An analysis of the Justice Department's own list of terrorism prosecutions by The Washington Post shows that 39 people -- not 200, as officials have implied -- were convicted of crimes related to terrorism or national security.

Most of the others were convicted of relatively minor crimes such as making false statements and violating immigration law -- and had nothing to do with terrorism, the analysis shows. For the entire list, the median sentence was just 11 months.

Taken as a whole, the data indicate that the government's effort to identify terrorists in the United States has been less successful than authorities have often suggested. The statistics provide little support for the contention that authorities have discovered and prosecuted hundreds of terrorists here. Except for a small number of well-known cases -- such as truck driver Iyman Faris, who sought to take down the Brooklyn Bridge -- few of those arrested appear to have been involved in active plots inside the United States.

Among all the people charged as a result of terrorism probes in the three years after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, The Post found no demonstrated connection to terrorism or terrorist groups for 180 of them.

Just one in nine individuals on the list had an alleged connection to the al Qaeda terrorist network and only 14 people convicted of terrorism-related crimes -- including Faris and convicted Sept. 11 plotter Zacarias Moussaoui -- have clear links to the group. Many more cases involve Colombian drug cartels, supporters of the Palestinian cause, Rwandan war criminals or others with no apparent ties to al Qaeda or its leader, Osama bin Laden.

But a large number of people appear to have been swept into U.S. counterterrorism investigations by chance -- through anonymous tips, suspicious circumstances or bad luck -- and have remained classified as terrorism defendants years after being cleared of connections to extremist groups.

All the Bill of Rights protections we surrendered with the Patriot Act haven't bought us much. Are you glad that you gave up habeus corpus (you did) for a false statements charge?

Guns and Bandages

The reality in Iraq
Bush owes Americans an honest assessment of the war's progress

President Bush owes the American people an honest, realistic status report on the war. He should go on television and, as Sen. Joe Biden said Thursday, explain why he believes that Americans must stay in Iraq to ensure the self-determination of its people.

Biden, who just returned from a visit to Iraq, told the Gannett News Service, "No foreign policy can be undertaken without the informed consent of the American people. Right now, there is no information. There is a giant disconnect between what is happening on the ground and what we're being told."

Biden, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, wants Bush and his administration to "tell the people what they know -- which is that there is a shot (at peace in the region) if (Americans) continue to invest their kids and their money in it."

The president needs to reassure not only Americans at home but those fighting in Iraq.

A Washington Post story, republished Friday in the Herald-Tribune, quotes Army 1st Lt. Kenrick Cato, who was on a mission in Baiji, Iraq:

"I know the party line. You know, the Department of Defense, the U.S. Army, five-star generals, four-star generals, President Bush, Donald Rumsfeld: The Iraqis will be ready in whatever time period.

"But from the ground, I can say with certainty they won't be ready before I leave. And I know I'll be back in Iraq, probably in three or four years. And I don't think they'll be ready by then."

Cato formerly owned part of a database firm on Long Island. After the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, he sold his share of the business and joined the Army.

A man like that deserves to have his leaders tell the truth. So do all of the American people.

Actually, Bush should explain why we shouldn't just get the fsck out of the way and let the Iraqis determine their national best interest. Oh, the fact that we've completely de-stabalized the country and don't have enough troops to police it MIGHT be a factor in determining our own self-interest.

Saddam was a bad man, but how much blood and money are we supposed to pay for "taking him out" when we can't extend medical care to 45 million of our own people? Hmmm?

Proper Prior Planning Prevents....

Walter Pincus finally makes page 1.

Memo: U.S. Lacked Full Postwar Iraq Plan
Advisers to Blair Predicted Instability

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, June 12, 2005; Page A01

A briefing paper prepared for British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his top advisers eight months before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq concluded that the U.S. military was not preparing adequately for what the British memo predicted would be a "protracted and costly" postwar occupation of that country.

The eight-page memo, written in advance of a July 23, 2002, Downing Street meeting on Iraq, provides new insights into how senior British officials saw a Bush administration decision to go to war as inevitable, and realized more clearly than their American counterparts the potential for the post-invasion instability that continues to plague Iraq.

In its introduction, the memo "Iraq: Conditions for Military Action" notes that U.S. "military planning for action against Iraq is proceeding apace," but adds that "little thought" has been given to, among other things, "the aftermath and how to shape it."

The July 21 memo was produced by Blair's staff in preparation for a meeting with his national security team two days later that has become controversial on both sides of the Atlantic since last month's disclosure of official notes summarizing the session.

In those meeting minutes -- which have come to be known as the Downing Street Memo -- British officials who had just returned from Washington said Bush and his aides believed war was inevitable and were determined to use intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and his relations with terrorists to justify invasion of Iraq.

The "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy," said the memo -- an assertion attributed to the then-chief of British intelligence, and denied by U.S. officials and by Blair at a news conference with Bush last week in Washington. Democrats in Congress led by Rep. John Conyers Jr. (Mich.), however, have scheduled an unofficial hearing on the matter for Thursday.

Now, disclosure of the memo written in advance of that meeting -- and other British documents recently made public -- show that Blair's aides were not just concerned about Washington's justifications for invasion but also believed the Bush team lacked understanding of what could happen in the aftermath.

In a section titled "Benefits/Risks," the July 21 memo states, "Even with a legal base and a viable military plan, we would still need to ensure that the benefits of action outweigh the risks."

Saying that "we need to be sure that the outcome of the military action would match our objective," the memo's authors point out, "A post-war occupation of Iraq could lead to a protracted and costly nation-building exercise." The authors add, "As already made clear, the U.S. military plans are virtually silent on this point. Washington could look to us to share a disproportionate share of the burden."

That memo and other internal British government documents were originally obtained by Michael Smith, who writes for the London Sunday Times. Excerpts were made available to The Washington Post, and the material was confirmed as authentic by British sources who sought anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss the matter.

The Bush administration's failure to plan adequately for the postwar period has been well documented. The Pentagon, for example, ignored extensive State Department studies of how to achieve stability after an invasion, administer a postwar government and rebuild the country. And administration officials have acknowledged the mistake of dismantling the Iraqi army and canceling pensions to its veteran officers -- which many say hindered security, enhanced anti-U.S. feeling and aided what would later become a violent insurgency.

Testimony by then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul D. Wolfowitz, one of the chief architects of Iraq policy, before a House subcommittee on Feb. 28, 2003, just weeks before the invasion, illustrated the optimistic view the administration had of postwar Iraq. He said containment of Hussein the previous 12 years had cost "slightly over $30 billion," adding, "I can't imagine anyone here wanting to spend another $30 billion to be there for another 12 years." As of May, the Congressional Research Service estimated that Congress has approved $208 billion for the war in Iraq since 2003.

The British, however, had begun focusing on doubts about a postwar Iraq in early 2002, according to internal memos.

A March 14 memo to Blair from David Manning, then the prime minister's foreign policy adviser and now British ambassador in Washington, reported on talks with then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice. Among the "big questions" coming out of his sessions, Manning reported, was that the president "has yet to find the answers . . . [and] what happens on the morning after."

About 10 days later, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw wrote a memo to prepare Blair for a meeting in Crawford, Tex., on April 8. Straw said "the big question" about military action against Hussein was, "how there can be any certainty that the replacement regime will be any better," as "Iraq has no history of democracy."

Straw said the U.S. assessments "assumed regime change as a means of eliminating Iraq's WMD [weapons of mass destruction] threat. But none has satisfactorily answered how that regime change is to be secured. . . ."

Later in the summer, the postwar doubts would be raised again, at the July 23 meeting memorialized in the Downing Street Memo. Richard Dearlove, then head of MI6, the British intelligence service, reported on his meetings with senior Bush officials. At one point, Dearlove said, "There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."

Republican Party Chairman Ken Mehlman, appearing June 5 on "Meet the Press," disagreed with Dearlove's remark. "I think that there was clearly planning that occurred."

The Blair government, unlike its U.S. counterparts, always doubted that coalition troops would be uniformly welcomed, and sought U.N. participation in the invasion in part to set the stage for an international occupation and reconstruction of Iraq, said British officials interviewed recently. London was aware that the State Department had studied how to deal with an invasion's aftermath. But the British government was "shocked," in the words of one official, "when we discovered that in the postwar period the Defense Department would still be running the show."

The Downing Street Memo has been the subject of debate since the London Sunday Times first published it May 1. Opponents of the war say it proved the Bush administration was determined to invade months before the president said he made that decision.

Neither Bush nor Blair has publicly challenged the authenticity of the July 23 memo, nor has Dearlove spoken publicly about it. One British diplomat said there are different interpretations.

Emphasis mine. And I'll bet this article ran about 1,800 words longer than the Post printed today.

UPDATE: Here is the Times ONLINE memo from today, new disclosures which go into rather more detail than the WaPo gives you. The Brits at least discussed the edges of what constitutes a war crime. The subject doesn't appear to have come up on this side of the pond.

The thought comes into my mind, "What on earth was Tony smoking when he agreed to this deal?" Anyone with a smidge of commonsense and a quick read of military history would know it was a mistake. The Bushists don't "do" aftermaths, anyone who knows the family would know that. Cleaning up is left to the help. My informed sources will tell you that (needs Real Player.)

The Perps

Interrogating Ourselves

By JOSEPH LELYVELD
Published: June 12, 2005

I. The Silence After Abu Ghraib

In order to get to the nub of the question of what we as citizens really expect and require of American interrogators facing supposed terrorists -- how far we're prepared to allow those asking the questions to venture into the dark realm of brutalization and coercion -- let's for argument's sake put aside the most horrific, shameful cases, those of detainees who died under interrogation: that of Manadel al-Jamadi, for instance, whose body was wrapped in plastic and packed in ice when it was carried out of an Abu Ghraib prison shower room a year and a half ago, where he'd been handcuffed to a wall; or Abed Hamed Mowhoush, who, elsewhere in Iraq, appears to have been thrust headfirst into a sleeping bag, manhandled there and then, finally, suffocated. By anyone's definition of torture -- even that of the Bush administration, which originally propounded (and later withdrew) a strikingly narrow definition holding that torture occurs only when the pain is ''of an intensity akin to that which accompanies serious physical injury such as death or organ failure'' -- these cases answer the question of whether torture has been committed by our side in what's called the global war on terror. No one steps forward to condone what's plainly illegal under United States and international law. And although we've seen no indication that blame will attach to any official or command officer at any level for these killings, there are small signs that conclusions have been drawn somewhere between the Pentagon and White House, signs of an overdue housecleaning, or maybe just a tidying up. By the coldest cost-benefit calculation, a dead detainee is a disaster: he cannot be a source of ''actionable intelligence,'' only fury. So there's now a new policy, ''Procedures for Investigations Into the Death of Detainees in the Custody of the Armed Forces of the U.S.,'' that was duly conveyed last month to the Committee Against Torture, a United Nations body, in a subsection of a longer report. The subsection's heading even carried a whiff of contrition. It was ''Lessons Learned and Policy Reforms.'' Also, the Pentagon has let it be known that it's preparing a new manual for interrogators that prohibits physical and psychological humiliation of detainees. What interrogation techniques it does allow are listed in a classified annex as, presumably, are any hints of what can happen when those techniques fail to produce the desired results. Can the detainee then be handed over to another agency, like the Central Intelligence Agency, that may not be constrained by the new directives? Or to units of a foreign government like the counterterrorism units now being financed and coordinated in Iraq by the United States?

In other words, if there has been a housecleaning, to how much of the shadowy counterterrorism edifice constructed since Sept. 11 does it now apply? The cases we know about, after all, are mostly old cases, even if we recently learned about them. We've been told little about what's now going on in interrogation rooms at Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib -- what the limits are now supposed to be. While Defense Department investigators are still kept busy looking into detainees' complaints of abuse in Iraq, it has to be acknowledged that we've yet to hear of any fatalities under interrogation in 2004 or 2005.

It has been more than a year now since we (and, of course, the region in which we presume to be crusading for freedom) were shown a selection of snapshots from Abu Ghraib with their depraved staging of hooded figures, snarling dogs and stacked naked bodies. For all the genuine outrage in predictable places over what was soon being called a ''torture scandal'' -- in legal forums, editorial pages, letters columns -- the usual democratic cleansing cycle never really got going. However strong the outcry, it wasn't enough to yield political results in the form of a determined Congressional investigation, let alone an independent commission of inquiry; the Pentagon's own inquiries, which exonerated its civilian and political leadership, told us a good deal more than most Americans, so it would appear, felt they needed to know. Members of Congress say they receive a negligible number of letters and calls about the revelations that keep coming. ''You asked whether they want it clear or want it blurry,'' Senator Susan Collins, a Maine Republican, said to me about the reaction of her constituents to the torture allegations that alarm her. ''I think they want it blurry.''

Thanks to all your reporters, Joe, we've gotten it blurry. And you've neglected to get Americans to care, through the lousy reporting of your paper (Judith Miller) and the others. What you haven't said on the front page of your paper is that Bush lied and thousands are dying, Bush lied and we became torturers yet again.

I invite you to read your coverage of Whitewater, and then to review the way you are covering a war in which real people are dying. I suspect that since Ted Olsen is no longer in the office of Solicitor General, you will give the next 1,700 military deaths in Iraq yet another pass.

The reason why I no longer subscribe to the Times is that you are just another media outlet for the Bush administration. You hide it better than others, but not by much. Finding your corporatate agenda on the front page isn't very hard work. If one of your reporters asked a hard question at a Bush availability, I think I'd fall down dead from shock.

You flakked the war and you've covered it poorly since.

You'll not get a dime out of me when you go all subscription in September. It will be a pleasure to stop reading you, not when you print crap like this.

The Use of Dead Trees

I actually got a chance to read Untidy: The Blogs on Rumsfeld this week, thanks to some time on the busses and subway. Wow. To be included in this group of writers is a humbling compliment. The co-authors are the people I've been looking up to for years.

Tom Sumner, the editor, did an absolutely brilliant job of weaving the blogposts together and his own writing in the introductory essays is simply superb. Working with an editor who is also a writer is a real gift.

If you want to try to explain the blogging thing to family and friends, hand them this book. Of course, Tom had to foot note all of the links (I'm still working on the Master's thesis, and wish like hell that I could link rather than type footnotes) which makes this little book seem a little harder than it might, but William, James has put out an elegant and inexpensive little paper back which is a worthy introduction to the blog world. The production values are high and I'm impressed with their work.

The stinging critique of Rummy offered by the blogs has never been examined by the MSM. And they question OUR ethics? They are lazy lapdogs.

Do Headline Writers Proof Read?

Look at this headline and try to convince me that irony is not dead:

U.S. Asks Others to Pressure Iraq to Be Inclusive

On the Internets

God 2.0

Jeff Sharlet: One of the smartest voices in radio is launching a new public radio show -- an experiment of sorts -- on May 30, and The Revealer is delighted to be a part of its first week of programming (I'll be a guest on June 2nd).

The voice belongs to Chris Lydon, the former host of the The Connection, and the program will be called Open Source. It'll debut on Boston's WGBH as well as public radio stations in Seattle and Salt Lake City, and we predict it'll grow quickly from that base. My favorite radio producer, David Miller, will be working on the show. Listen to some of Dave's stuff on NPR: "Politics and the Prayer Group"; "Finding Love, Late in Life" (no religion; lots of sex).

Dave has nice things to say about me, too, on Open Source's blog -- which, as part of the experiment, will be part of the show. A lot of shows use blogs now, but Lydon will be posting his topics and his guests well in advance, so that listeners can actually help shape the show rather than just respond. "Open Source will not be a show about blogs," explains Lydon. "It will use blogs to be a show about the world." And Lydon goes into more depth about the Open Source idea here, naming as ancestors -- as proto-bloggers -- Tom Paine, I.F. Stone, and Emerson.

Dave Miller says: This is a huge topic — a Pew Internet and American Life Project report last year found that 64% of the 128 million wired Americans have “done things online that relate to religious or spiritual matters” — and we’re turning to Jeff to help us navigate the waters. He’s one of the wisest and most bracing voices on contemporary American religion that I know. He’s also funny, which never hurts when you’re talking about God.

Jeff talked about the reconfiguration of religious space, about reading your favorite Catholic blogs at work and sacralizing, even inadvertently, your workplace. He also argued that something interesting is happening with religious authority: that, like with Wikipedia, the whole notion of authority is more diluted, and complicated. But he’s not entirely convinced by the democratizing influence of the web. He sees a greater concentration of religiously conservative voices online than off… and he’s not exactly sure why.

Gordon, or RealLivePreacher, is one of the most widely read and widely respected writers about religion online. He’s going to talk to us about the differences between his church ministering and his online… writing. (He doesn’t quite feel comfortable calling blogging “ministering,” although many of his frequent readers might disagree.) He noted that writing the blog has changed his Sunday sermons in small but perceptible ways; he’s braver now, and takes more risks. And he told me that he wouldn’t mind if none of his blog readers were Christian; he loves the growing relationships — friendships, in many cases — that RealLivePreacher has helped him foster with agnostics, Jews, mystics, and searchers of all stripes. Are you one of them? Do you read RealLivePreacher? What do you get from it?

The link at the top of the post takes you to the archived MP3 of the radio show from last week. Jeff is a regular correspondent of mine and the show is a smart one. Gordon Atkinson is simply one of the most open and honest seekers I have ever had the experience to get to "know" by email. If you aren't reading Real Live Preacher regularly, you are denying yourself a real treat, one with 0 carbs.

Choiced Out

One Nation, With Niches for All

By STACY SCHIFF
Published: June 11, 2005

E. B. White claimed he knew his wife was the girl for him when she referred to dental floss as "tooth twine." I take his point. I also tried to buy "tooth twine" recently. By any name, that is an exercise in frustration, or affluence-induced A.D.D., or option overload. If there is plain old standard issue dental floss out there, it is on the shelf with the all-purpose running shoes and the unadulterated, adjectiveless cup of coffee.

In taking cluster analysis and its classifications to the logical extreme, are we not building a superfinicky society? Five minutes in any Starbucks line will answer that one. We used to be one nation, undivided, under three networks, three car companies and two brands of toothpaste for all. Today we are the mass niche nation. This is a country in which 40 percent of the eligible population doesn't vote, but can be expected to maneuver its way through a sprawl of options every time it heads out for tooth twine. Increasingly the brick-and-mortar world resembles the virtual one: an infinite landscape of microscopic subcategories, in which one loses oneself, twice.
....
Is there a name for what I'm experiencing? Of course there is, replies John Quelch, the Harvard Business School consumer marketing guru, who began laughing as soon as he heard the words "toothpaste aisle." He was quick to diagnose "analysis paralysis at the point of sale." Paco Underhill, perhaps our most diligent student of the science of shopping, terms it the "confusion index." And yes, it's growing. As are the fractures among us.

Mr. Quelch offers only one survival strategy: "Walk on by." After all, he says, "It wouldn't happen if we didn't buy it." The manufacturers of toothpaste are not exactly worrying about our tuning out. It's a free market. Furthermore, Mr. Quelch adds, "it's rather difficult to compute all the sales that never happen because of analysis paralysis."

You can't please all of the people all of the time, but you can sell a segment of them something at least that often. The market won't rest until it has located that last stalwart who isn't budging until he hears about cough-suppressing, posture-correcting, wrinkle-reducing, memory-enhancing, antioxidant dental floss. On the other hand, when he meets someone who shares that passion, he can be certain he has found precisely the girl for him.

A friend remarked to me recently that he wished that Purina or someone would make "human chow" for the days when he can't decide what to eat. I sympathized. By the time I get to the end of the day and conclude my grocery shopping experience, I nearly go nuts when the checker says, "paper or plastic?" By the end of most days, I'm all choiced out. Don't ask me to make any more decisions.

Clergy Shortage

Saturday is "Religion" day in most dailies. Here's the WaPo's contribution today.

A Minimum Of Ministers
Small Towns Feel Pinch With Higher Costs, Fewer New Members of Clergy

By Bill Tammeus
Knight-Ridder Newspapers
Saturday, June 11, 2005; B09

Rothman's case reveals a clergy shortage afflicting not just the Roman Catholic Church, whose priest shortage is well documented. The shortage also is being felt by many Protestant denominations -- especially in small, rural places such as Lancaster, home to fewer than 300 residents.

Church officials and scholars trying to explain the overall problem cite denominations that will not ordain women, the difficulty of clergy making a competitive wage and the debilitating effects of various church scandals -- from television evangelists who bilk people out of money to priests who abuse children.

Here are some statistics:

· In the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the number of pastors in active ministry has fallen from 13,841 in 1990 to about 11,100 today.

· In the Catholic Church, the number of priests in the United States has fallen to 44,500, down about 15,000 in the reign of Pope John Paul II. The average age of priests is 61.

· In the 2.4 million-member Presbyterian Church (USA), about 4,000 of the 11,100 congregations are without pastors. Only 55 of the 108 churches in Heartland Presbytery, covering western Missouri and eastern Kansas, have installed pastors.

· In 1990, the United Methodist Church ordained 820 seminary-trained clergy. Ten years later, that figure had dropped by 200, forcing churches to rely on "local pastors" with less training. Only about 60 percent of the 54 churches in the Methodist district that includes Kansas City, Mo., have full-time pastors.

Those numbers may suggest a crisis -- and some church officials describe things that way. But the reality is more complex. Some studies, in fact, show there is no clergy shortage for large urban congregations.

"The challenge," said the Rev. Craig Palmer, Heartland Presbytery's interim leader, "is with the smaller churches, in particular the smaller rural churches."

That is why, to Lutheran officials, Rothman, a former mechanical engineer, is a godsend. But paying her fairly is not easy.

"We are strapped to pay Pastor Jane's salary and our bills," said Wayne Stuck, chairman of the Lancaster committee working on joining with the Bendena church.

When asked about the clergy shortage, Bishop Dean Wolfe of the Episcopal Diocese of Kansas responded that "the ministry is one of the professions that in recent years has taken a certain hit in terms of prestige. But maybe more importantly than that, the church did not make young people feel important or wanted."

So, fewer college graduates go directly to seminary for a lifetime of ministry, he said. Seminaries attract second-career people in their forties and fifties looking for a change and spiritual fulfillment. Wolfe himself spent seven years doing sales and marketing before entering seminary.

"One of the numbers . . . that shocked me was that I was told I was the sixth-youngest clergy person in the diocese, and I'll be 49 soon," Wolfe said. If the Episcopal Church had enough full-time priests to go around, he said, "we would have a much more deeply textured congregational life."

Among Protestant churches, the biggest problem is providing pastoral leadership for small congregations where budgets get consumed keeping the building open and paying the pastor, leaving no money for mission or outreach, denominational officials said.

The shortages are just going to keep getting worse. I predict that, at least in rural areas, this will lead to greater ecumenism as small congregations of various denominations have to band together to hire professional leadership, as well as greater use (and development of) lay ministers, probably with less than a full masters degree in theology or divinity.

Parish ministry can be an extraordinarily rewarding calling for those with the temperament for it, but, like teaching and nursing, it no longer has cachet in society. Combine that with the known facts that the hours are long, the pay only fair and the hassle factor pretty high and it's no wonder that new college grads don't consider it a worthwhile career path. When I was in seminary, more than three quarters of the students (lay or ordination track) were second career people.

No Conversation

House Judiciary Chairman Walks Out of Heated Hearing
# Rep. Sensenbrenner, a Republican, cuts off a meeting on the Patriot Act's constitutionality
From Associated Press

WASHINGTON — The Republican House Judiciary Committee chairman walked off with the gavel Friday, leaving Democrats shouting into turned-off microphones at a raucous hearing on the Patriot Act.

The hearing, with the two sides accusing each other of being irresponsible and undemocratic, came as President Bush was urging Congress to renew the sections of the post-Sept. 11 counter-terrorism law set to expire in September.

Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.), chairman of the panel, abruptly gaveled the meeting to an end and walked out, followed by other Republicans. Sensenbrenner said that much of the testimony, which veered into debate over the detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, was irrelevant.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) protested, raising his voice as his microphone went off, came back on, and went off again.

"We are not besmirching the honor of the United States; we are trying to uphold it," he said.

Democrats had asked for the hearing, the 11th the committee has held on the act since April, saying past hearings had been too slanted toward witnesses who supported the law. The four witnesses were from groups, including Amnesty International USA and the American Immigration Lawyers Assn., that had questioned the constitutionality of some aspects of the act, which allows law enforcement greater authority to investigate suspected terrorists.

Nadler said Sensenbrenner, an author of the Patriot Act, was "rather rude, cutting everybody off in midsentence with an attitude of total hostility."

Tempers flared when Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) accused Amnesty International of endangering the lives of Americans in uniform by calling the prison at Guantanamo Bay a "gulag." Sensenbrenner didn't allow the Amnesty representative, Chip Pitts, to respond until Nadler raised a "point of decency."

Hey, it works for O'Reilly.

But, on a more serious note, what this episode demonstrates is that there is no representation for those of us who don't vote Republican. We've just been told to take a hike. We aren't Americans.

Suffer the Little Ones

Reading, Writing and Recruiting

By Diane Paul

Saturday, June 11, 2005; Page A17

Poor children (often minorities) without money for college are recruiters' easiest targets. Far too many of our nation's disadvantaged youth are forced to gamble with their lives for an opportunity other Americans take for granted. During one-on-one chats with our children, recruiters provide a false image of what joining up means. Images of tough guys and gals in snappy uniforms piloting attack helicopters and driving big Humvees seem pretty exciting to many kids. But the gruesome realities of war and the chance of serving in Iraq or Afghanistan before ever setting foot on a college campus are details left out of slick recruitment brochures. It is beyond heartbreaking to wonder how many 18-year-olds -- still so young -- understood, when told of the opportunities awaiting them, that they might never come home.

How has it happened that recruiters -- who used to come only on career days -- are now present in our schools much of the time? I would wager that most parents have no idea that the No Child Left Behind Act offers public high schools a choice: Provide access to and information about students "for purposes of military recruitment" or risk losing federal funding.

What does this have to do with educational reform, what No Child Left Behind is supposed to be about? A letter sent to educators in October 2002 by then-Education Secretary Rod Paige and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is revealing. It states: "Sustaining that heritage [defending freedom] requires the active support of public institutions in presenting military opportunities to our young people for their consideration. Recognizing the challenges faced by military recruiters, Congress recently passed legislation that requires high schools to provide to recruiters, upon request, access to secondary school students and directory information on those students. Both the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 reflect these requirements." It seems obvious that recruitment drives in schools have nothing to with educational reform. This is about our government solving its recruitment problem.

What is a concerned parent to do, especially as recruitment efforts are redoubled? In my town of Cookeville, Tenn., when Quakers and Vietnam War veterans informed students how they could serve their country in other ways, they were banned from the high school for months and called "anti-American." But when an Army recruiter presented a program called "What Patriotism Is" to all the second-graders (7-year-olds) in our county, no one said a word.

Under the No Child Left Behind Act, schools are legally obligated to inform parents of their right to "opt out" of having information about their children given to the military. But the schools often fail to inform, or bury opt-out information in legally obscure language at the back of a student handbook. Opting out seems rather insignificant given the fact that recruiters have physical access on a frequent basis to our schoolchildren.

Without doubt, a great debt is owed to our military, and a military career can be a path of pride and opportunity. The government has a duty to ensure that the military has the soldiers and equipment it needs. But the government must also ensure the protection of our children and safeguard the role of public schools as places of learning. The military should not be permitted to use our schools as vehicles to send young people to war.

Educators, parents and students should demand that Congress rescind those laws that violate the fundamental trust parents have in public schools by requiring schools to become recruitment offices.

I had no idea that this was the case. NCLB was never about education. Turns out that it is about indoctrination.

Army slips further behind recruiting goals
Fri Jun 10, 2005 05:06 PM ET

By Will Dunham

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Army has slipped further behind its recruiting goals amid the Iraq war, figures released on Friday showed, as officials developed proposals to double cash bonuses and offer mortgage aid for enlisting.

The Army hopes to raise the maximum cash bonus for new recruits to $40,000 and begin a pilot program to give up to $50,000 in home-mortgage assistance to people who volunteer for eight years of active-duty service, said Lt. Col. Thomas Collins, an Army spokesman.

These would augment incentives already being offered to try to coax people into volunteering. The new proposals would need congressional approval, and Army Secretary Francis Harvey already has spoken to lawmakers, Collins said.

The new Pentagon recruiting figures showed that two-thirds through the fiscal 2005 recruiting year, which ends Sept. 30, the regular Army was 17 percent behind its goal, the Army Reserve was 20 percent behind and the Army National Guard was 24 percent behind its end-of-May plans.

The Army, which provides most of the U.S. ground troops in Iraq, had missed its fourth consecutive monthly recruiting goal in May, officials said earlier in the week. The Pentagon had delayed release of the detailed recruiting figures by more than a week for what it called extra scrutiny.

Unlike the Army, the Marine Corps, with a smaller share of the Iraq ground troops, exceeded its May recruiting goal and was 2 percent ahead of its year-to-date target toward an annual goal of 39,150 recruits. The Navy and Air Force also were on target.

The Pentagon said there have been 1,685 U.S. military deaths, mostly from the Army, since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003.

Thought Control

Panel Would Cut Public Broadcasting Aid

By STEPHEN LABATON
Published: June 10, 2005

WASHINGTON, June 9 - A House Appropriations panel on Thursday approved a spending bill that would cut the budget for public television and radio nearly in half and eliminate a $23 million federal program that has provided some money for producing children's shows that include "Sesame Street," "Clifford the Big Red Dog," "Between the Lions" and "Dragon Tales."

By a voice vote, the House Appropriations subcommittee adopted a measure that would reduce the financing of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the organization that directs taxpayer dollars to public television and radio, to $300 million from $400 million. The subcommittee also eliminated $39 million that stations say they need to convert to digital programming and $50 million for upgrading aging satellite technology that is the backbone of the PBS network.

"It is clear the G.O.P. agenda is to control public broadcasting or to defund it," said Representative David R. Obey of Wisconsin, the senior Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee. "House Republicans have gutted funding for public broadcasting stations across the country."

The vote came as public stations and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting are engaged in a debate over the editorial balance in programming and the independence of the stations.

The latest manifestation of the struggle between the stations and the corporation has arisen as the corporation searches for a new president. Mr. Tomlinson said in an interview in April that he had recommended that the board of the corporation appoint Patricia Harrison, a former co-chairwoman of the Republican National Committee and assistant secretary of state, as the organization's next president. He has said he hopes the post will be filled at a board meeting later this month.

But on Tuesday the Association of Public Television Stations sent Mr. Tomlinson a letter that endorsed an earlier one from Iowa Public Television that objected to the selection of "a political partisan."

"We are concerned that the historical and critically important role of CPB as a shield between programming and a political process that seeks to influence it is being compromised - in perception by reports of broad involvement in program content, or in fact by what we understand is a desire to appoint a partisan political activist to the currently vacant post of CPB president," the Iowa Public Broadcasting Board wrote. "We believe strongly that such an appointment would be in absolute contradiction to the concept of CPB as a buffer. It would call into question the motivations of everything we do, whether funded by CPB or not."

John Lawson, president of the Association of Public Television Stations, said that the subcommittee's decision to kill the Ready to Learn program, which provided $23 million for children's shows, came as payback for an episode earlier this year of "Postcards From Buster," in which Buster visits a pair of lesbian parents in Vermont. PBS pulled the episode as it began to face complaints about it.

Officials at National Public Radio said rural and minority communities would be hardest hit by the cuts.

One sign that Republicans are begining to overreach is they assume that the public is so #@$%^&! stupid to believe that by gutting Public Broadcasting, a serious improvement can be made on the budget crisis.

Also, the people in Public Broadcasting are correct in assuming that more overt Republican control will lead to a reducing in fund raising. Both my father and I have verbally had it out with our local public broadcasting station when they called to beg for money from us. The sad thing is that the expansion of cable has lessened the impact of public broadcasting to the point that for many people, it's just another option for high quality programing instead of the only one.

Unconscious Racism

(White) Women We Love

By Eugene Robinson

Friday, June 10, 2005; Page A23

Before the Runaway Bride, there were too many damsels to provide a full list, but surely you remember the damsel elite: Laci Peterson. Elizabeth Smart. Lori Hacking. Chandra Levy. JonBenet Ramsey. We even found, or created, a damsel amid the chaos of war in Iraq: Jessica Lynch.

The specifics of the story line vary from damsel to damsel. In some cases, the saga begins with the discovery of a corpse. In other cases, the damsel simply vanishes into thin air. Often, there is a suspect from the beginning -- an intruder, a husband, a father, a congressman, a stranger glimpsed lurking nearby.

Sometimes the tale ends well, or well enough, as in the cases of Smart and Lynch. Let's hope it ends well for Holloway. But more often, it ends badly. Once in a great while, a case like Runaway Bride comes along to provide comic relief.

But of course the damsels have much in common besides being female. You probably have some idea of where I'm headed here.

A damsel must be white. This requirement is nonnegotiable. It helps if her frame is of dimensions that breathless cable television reporters can credibly describe as "petite," and it also helps if she's the kind of woman who wouldn't really mind being called "petite," a woman with a good deal of princess in her personality. She must be attractive -- also nonnegotiable. Her economic status should be middle class or higher, but an exception can be made in the case of wartime (see: Lynch).

Put all this together, and you get 24-7 coverage. The disappearance of a man, or of a woman of color, can generate a brief flurry, but never the full damsel treatment. Since the Holloway story broke we've had more news reports from Aruba this past week, I'd wager, than in the preceding 10 years.

I have no idea whether the late French philosopher Jacques Derrida hung on every twist and turn of the Chandra Levy case; somehow, I doubt he did. But I suspect the apostle of "deconstructionism" would have analyzed the damsel-in-distress phenomenon by explaining that our society is imposing its own subconsciously chosen narrative on all these cases.

It's the meta-narrative of something seen as precious and delicate being snatched away, defiled, destroyed by evil forces that lurk in the shadows, just outside the bedroom window. It's whiteness under siege. It's innocence and optimism crushed by cruel reality. It's a flower smashed by a rock.

Or maybe (since Derrida believed in multiple readings of a single text) the damsel thing is just a guaranteed cure for a slow news day. The cable news channels, after all, have lots of airtime to fill.

This is not to mock any one of these cases (except Runaway Bride) or to diminish the genuine tragedy experienced by family and friends. I can imagine the helplessness I'd feel if a child of mine disappeared from a remote beach in the Caribbean. But I can also be fairly confident that neither of my sons would provoke so many headlines.

Whatever our ultimate reason for singling out these few unfortunate victims, among the thousands of Americans who are murdered or who vanish each year, the pattern of choosing only young, white, middle-class women for the full damsel treatment says a lot about a nation that likes to believe it has consigned race and class to irrelevance.

What it says is that we haven't. What it says is that those stubborn issues are still very much alive and that they remain at the heart of the nation's deepest fears.

It's true. And I'll bet the cable networks aren't even thinking about the racism and meta-narratives they are playing into, and I'll bet there isn't a single African American who isn't aware of them. Is there any wonder there is so much suspicion between the races?

It Begins

Army conducting 'criminal probe' into deaths of 2 soldiers

Friday, June 10, 2005 Posted: 1:35 PM EDT (1735 GMT)

Also on Friday, the U.S. Army disclosed that it is conducting a "criminal investigation" into the deaths of two Task Force Liberty soldiers who died Tuesday.

Capt. Phillip T. Esposito and 1st Lt. Louis E. Allen died about 10 p.m. Tuesday at Forward Operating Base Danger, near Tikrit, and the military said then that "an indirect fire attack" killed them.

"The initial investigation by responders and military police indicated that a mortar round struck the window on the side of the building where Esposito and Allen were located at the time," a military statement said.

"Upon further examination of the scene by explosive ordnance personnel, it was determined the blast pattern was inconsistent with a mortar attack," the document states.

The Army is looking at a number of scenarios including accidental death, attack by an intruder or infiltrator and fragging, which is the killing or wounding of a fellow soldier.

Both officers were "assigned to Headquarters & Headquarters Company, 42nd Infantry Division, New York Army National Guard. Esposito was the company commander; Allen served as a company operations officer," the statement reads.

Fragging. It had to happen eventually.

Eat the Rich

Jonathan Chait: Envy Them? No. Tax Them? Oh Yeah.

In recent weeks, three of the nation's leading newspapers have taken on this topic. The Los Angeles Times published a series showing how economic risk has grown in recent years. The Wall Street Journal has shown that economic mobility has declined. And the New York Times has examined various aspects of class, including the fact that the share of income enjoyed by the top 0.1% has exploded in recent years.

Whenever you broach such inconvenient facts, conservatives invariably have three pat replies. One is to accuse you of envying the rich and/or wanting to kill them. Another is to suggest you want to turn the United States into a clone of some god-awful country. (The Soviet Union once served this purpose nicely. Since the fall of communism, though, conservatives have had to search about for other boogeymen, usually settling on some decidedly less-frightening Western European democracy.) The third is to insist that it's good for everybody when the country gets less equal.

The first two techniques were on vivid display in a recent column by Lawrence Kudlow, the CNBC talking head, occasional GOP advisor and high priest of the cult of supply-side economics. In a recent National Review Online column in which he was forced to acknowledge the higher incomes enjoyed by the super-rich, Kudlow fired off the following sarcastic ripostes to a New York Times article by reporter David Cay Johnston on the rich: "How dare they be successful earners and investors"; "Should we go out and shoot these 145,000 [taxpayers] for their success?"; and "Germans have an 'equality sickness' that makes them dependent on the welfare state. Is that what David Cay Johnston has in mind for America?"

Speaking as a member of the liberal media, I can answer the last question very certainly: Yes, yes it is. If you walk in any newsroom in America, you will find reporters whispering to each other in German, humming "Deutschland Uber Alles" and scheming to install somebody of Teutonic stock in the White House. (Making Arnold Schwarzenegger governor was just the first step in this plot. Shhh.)

A slightly less inflammatory response than Kudlow's came from Harvard economist and former Bush economic advisor Greg Mankiw. "The data show that the rich take a rising share of income when the economy is booming, such as during the 1920s and 1990s," Mankiw wrote in a letter to the New York Times, concluding that if policymakers "want economic prosperity for all, they should avoid focusing on the politics of envy."

Mankiw's choice of decades to focus on is a bit strange. Although I'm not an economist, I understand that the 1920s did not end well. Moreover, Mankiw ignores the nearly three decades after World War II, when the nation enjoyed high economic growth while the share of income held by the very rich fell. It's worth remembering that period because although people nowadays tend to think of the rich getting richer and the poor getter poorer as inevitable, some of our most prosperous years coincided with rich and poor growing more equal.

Anyway, it's not just a matter of which decades you focus on. Mankiw is simply wrong. UC Berkeley economist and former Clinton Treasury official Brad DeLong ran an analysis, finding no connection between general prosperity and the share of income held by the very rich.

What's depressing is that even highly credentialed conservatives such as Mankiw equate any discussion of class inequality with "envy" of the rich. The accusation is actually bizarre. Liberals want to make the rich pay higher tax rates not because they hate them. (In fact, as conservatives love to point out in other contexts, many liberals are rich.) It's because somebody has to pay for the government, and the rich can more easily bear higher rates.

Moreover, there are ways of accomplishing this short of shooting the rich or imposing socialism, say raising the top tax rate to where it stood during the Clinton years. That, by the way, was the other decade of prosperity invoked by Mankiw.

Yeah, but a decade in which the disparity between rich and poor skyrocketed.

Picking a Winner

Va. Gov. Takes Steps Towards Presidential Run
Warner Forms PAC, Hires Former Gore Aide

By Michael D. Shear
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, June 10, 2005; 11:06 AM

RICHMOND, June 10 -- Virginia Gov. Mark R. Warner (D) is forming a federal political action committee and has hired a former top aide to Vice President Al Gore to advise him on national politics, the governor's top political aide in Virginia said.

The new PAC, which has not been named, will allow Warner to begin raising money for a possible run at the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008 while he finishes out his term in Virginia. The PAC will be announced formally in July or August, said Mary A. "Mame" Reiley, the director of Warner's One Virginia PAC.

Warner has raised millions for One Virginia, which reported a balance of $1.6 million as of April 1. But federal law prohibits the governor from spending money raised in his state PAC on a federal campaign. Virginia does not put limits on campaign contributions from individuals or corporations.

Reiley said Warner, a multi-millionaire who is limited to one term as governor, has also hired Monica Dixon, Gore's former deputy chief of staff, to be the federal PAC's first part-time consultant.

She said Dixon will help set up meetings between Warner and Democrats across the country as he makes the transition from governor back to private citizen.

"She's coming on board as an adviser to him on the national arena," Reiley said of Dixon. "Monica Dixon will be one of the people advising him. She brings a wealth of national experience. We're delighted that she's coming aboard."

Warner has not said whether he is going to run for president, although he is mentioned frequently among Washington pundits as a centrist Democrat who might win in conservative states that Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) lost to President Bush in 2004.

The Virginia governor has also not said whether he will challenge U.S. Sen. George Allen (R-Va.), who is up for reelection next year. Warner would need a federal PAC to raise money for a Senate race.

He's a Dem who won in a red state, balanced a hopelessly fscked-up budget and turned the state around in one term. If that's not a record to run on for president, I don't know what is. I'd vote for the guy again in a heartbeat.

Who Fights?

Top Army recruiter: initial class of '06 will be half that of '05

By MIKE SCHNEIDER
Associated Press Writer

ORLANDO, Fla. -- In an early sign that the Army recruiting slump will not soon end, the general in charge of finding new troops predicted Thursday that his service will begin the 2006 recruiting cycle with extraordinarily low numbers.

Typically, the Army prefers to have between a quarter and a third of a recruiting class assembled at the beginning of the new cycle.

The Army this year had a goal of 80,000 recruits, but had only 18 1/2 percent of its target at the beginning of the 2005 cycle and is only expected to have slightly more than 9 percent of the goal at the start of the 2006 cycle, said Maj. Gen. Michael Rochelle, commanding general of the U.S. Army Recruiting Command in Fort Knox, Ky.

"The challenge is a very daunting one," Rochelle told reporters after addressing a luncheon for workers in the computer simulation industry in Orlando.

The Army on Friday planned to release its May numbers, which were expected to be about 25 percent short of its target of 6,700 recruits. The Army also missed targets in February, March and April. Before February, the Army hadn't missed a recruiting goal since May 2000.

Army bonuses may rise to $40K
By Dave Moniz, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — The Army wants to double the top cash bonus for new recruits to $40,000 in an effort to stem a continued recruiting shortfall in the midst of the Iraq war.

As another incentive, the Army is proposing a pilot program to provide up to $50,000 in home mortgage help for recruits who sign up for eight years of active duty, Lt. Col. Thomas Collins said in an interview Thursday. Congress must approve both plans.

The $40,000 bonuses would apply only to a limited number of hard-to-fill and still-undetermined jobs, Collins said.

The Army raised bonuses for some jobs to $20,000 in 1999. It has steadily made more jobs eligible for bonuses this year as the recruiting shortfall has deepened.

Secretary of the Army Francis Harvey first raised the proposals during an appearance Tuesday, Collins said. They have not been sent to Congress.

The incentives have surfaced as the Army confirmed an account in The New York Times this week that it fell about 25% short of its May goal of 6,700 recruits, the fourth consecutive month the service has failed to meet its target.

The Army is running about 17% short of its annual recruiting goal of 80,000. At that pace, it will fall almost 14,000 recruits short for its fiscal year, which runs from Oct. 1 to Sept. 30.

Initial congressional reaction was positive, although Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said the proposals would not fix a "chronic" recruiting problem. Graham, a former Air Force officer who serves on the Armed Services Committee, said the Pentagon needs a comprehensive strategy on recruiting and retention.

That would include more troops, better benefits for Army National guardsmen and reservists and a more focused pitch to potential recruits that military service is vital to the winning the global war on terror. Without them, Graham said, "we're in a world of hurt."

Rep. Ike Skelton of Missouri, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, said he would favor increased bonuses but believes they will help "minimally." Skelton said he believes the Army will fall short of its year-end recruiting goal.

Army spokesman Paul Boyce said a busy summer will help the service meet its recruiting goals.

As U.S. deaths in Iraq approach 1,700, the Army has also offered enlistment hitches as short as 15 months. Maj. Gen. Michael Rochelle, the head of U.S. Army Recruiting Command, last month described the recruiting environment as "the toughest ever faced by the all-volunteer Army."

The Pentagon will release May recruiting figures for all military branches today. Army National Guard and Reserve recruiting is behind as well; each was about 20% short of its goal at the end of April, Harvey said.

The Army also said Thursday that it will ease requirements for new officers by accepting older candidates and being more tolerant of past minor crimes.

Any recruit who believes any of that is, by definition, too stupid to serve.

We have a word for people who fight for money, and it ain't "servicemember."

Smoking Gun

BBC's Greg Palast wonders:

For years, after each damning report on BBC TV, viewers inevitably ask me, "Isn't this grounds for impeachment?" -- vote rigging, a blind eye to terror and the bin Ladens before 9-11, and so on. Evil, stupidity and self-dealing are shameful but not impeachable. What's needed is a "high crime or misdemeanor."

And if this ain't it, nothing is.

The memo uncovered this week by the Times, goes on to describe an elaborate plan by George Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair to hoodwink the planet into supporting an attack on Iraq knowing full well the evidence for war was a phony.

A conspiracy to commit serial fraud is, under federal law, racketeering. However, the Mob's schemes never cost so many lives.

Here's more. "Bush had made up his mind to take military action. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."

Really? But Mr. Bush told us, "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

A month ago, the Silberman-Robb Commission issued its report on WMD intelligence before the war, dismissing claims that Bush fixed the facts with this snooty, condescending conclusion written directly to the President, "After a thorough review, the Commission found no indication that the Intelligence Community distorted the evidence regarding Iraq's weapons."

We now know the report was a bogus 618 pages of thick whitewash aimed to let Bush off the hook for his murderous mendacity.

Read on: The invasion build-up was then set, says the memo, "beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections." Mission accomplished.

You should parse the entire memo -- reprinted below -- and see if you can make it through its three pages without losing your lunch.

Now sharp readers may note they didn't see this memo, in fact, printed in the New York Times. It wasn't. Rather, it was splashed across the front pages of the Times of LONDON on Monday.

It has effectively finished the last, sorry remnants of Tony Blair's political career. (While his Labor Party will most assuredly win the elections Thursday, Prime Minister Blair is expected, possibly within months, to be shoved overboard in favor of his Chancellor of the Exchequer, a political execution which requires only a vote of the Labour party's members in Parliament.)

But in the US, barely a word. The New York Times covers this hard evidence of Bush's fabrication of a casus belli as some "British" elections story. Apparently, our President's fraud isn't "news fit to print."

My colleagues in the UK press have skewered Blair, digging out more incriminating memos, challenging the official government factoids and fibs. But in the US press … nada, bubkes, zilch. Bush fixed the facts and somehow that's a story for "over there."

The Republicans impeached Bill Clinton over his cigar and Monica's affections. And the US media could print nothing else.

Now, we have the stone, cold evidence of bending intelligence to sell us on death by the thousands, and neither a Republican Congress nor what is laughably called US journalism thought it worth a second look.

My friend Daniel Ellsberg once said that what's good about the American people is that you have to lie to them. What's bad about Americans is that it's so easy to do

Here is the Downing Street Memo, as published by the Times on Sunday:

SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY DAVID MANNING From: Matthew Rycroft Date: 23 July 2002 S 195 /02

cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell

IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY

Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.

This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.

John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.

The two broad US options were:

(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).

(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.

The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:

(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.

(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.

(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.

The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.

The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.

On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.

For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.

The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.

John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.

The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.

Conclusions:

(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.

(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.

(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.

(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.

He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.

(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.

(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.

(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)

MATTHEW RYCROFT

You are free to draw your own conclusions.

Proof

Via Juan Cole, there is more than one smoking gun:

Another Downing St Memo – Wrongfooting Saddam Thursday, 9 June 2005, 4:37 pm Article: The Scoop Editor

SCOOP EDITOR'S NOTE: The following is a transcript of another document leaked to the media concerning the build up to the Iraq war. It concerns a discussion in early 2002 between the UK Ambassador to the US and then Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz.

Importantly the following document appears to confirm the thrust of the allegations made concerning the so-called "Downing Street Memo", namely that the Bush Administration had already made up its mind to go to war against Iraq before it began the diplomatic offensive in the second half of 2002.

The transcript that follows was transcribed by a member of the Democratic Underground forums from the PDF version posted online. Some of the typos are from the original. Emphasis has been added to key passages.

IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN: CONVERSATION WITH WOLFOWITZ

1 Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, came to Sunday lunch on 17 March.

2 On Iraq I opened by sticking very closely to the script that you used with Condi Rice last week, We backed regime change, but the plan had to be clever and failure was not an option. It would be a tough sell for us domestically, and probably tougher elsewhere in Europe. The US could go it alone if it wanted to. But if it wanted to act with partners, there had to be a strategy for building support for military action against Saddam. I then went through the need to wrongfoot Saddam on the inspectors and the UN SCRs and the critical importance of the MEPP as an integral part of the anti-Saddam strategy. If all this could be accomplished skilfully, we were fairly confident that a number of countries would come on board.

3 I said that the UK was giving serious thought to publishing a paper that would make the case against Saddam. If the UK were to join with the US in any operation against Saddam, we would have to be able to take a critical mass of parliamentary and public opinion with us. It was extraordinary how people had forgotten how bad he was.

4 Wolfowitz said that he fully agreed. He took a slightly different position from others in the Administration, who were focussed on Saddam's capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction. The WMD danger was of course crucial to the public case against Saddam, particularly the potential linkage to terrorism. But Wolfowitz thought it indispensable to spell out in detail Saddam's barbarism. This was well documented from what he had done during the occupation of Kuwait, the incursion into Kurdish territory, the assault on the Marsh Arabs, and to his own people. A lot of work had been done on this towards the end of the first Bush administration. Wolfowitz thought that this would go a long way to destroying any notion of moral equivalence between Iraq and Israel. I said that I had been forcefully struck, when addressing university audiences in the US how ready students were to gloss over Saddam's crimes and to blame the US and the UK for the suffering of the Iraqi people.

5 Wolfowitz said that it was absurd to deny the link between terrorism and Saddam. There might be doubt about the alleged meeting in Prague between Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker on 9/11, and Iraqi intelligence (did we, he asked, know anything more about this meeting?). But there were other substantiated cases of Saddam giving comfort to terrorists, including someone involved in the first attack on the World Trade Center (the latest New Yorker apparently has a story about links between Saddam and Al Qaeda operating in Kurdistan).

6 I asked for Wolfowitz's take on the stuggle inside the Administration between the pro- and anti- INC lobbies (well documented in Sy Hersh's recent New Yorker piece, which I gave you). He said that he found himself between the two sides (but as the conversation developed, it became clear that Wolfowitz was far more pro-INC than not). He said that he was strongly opposed to what some were advocating: a coalition including all outside factions except the INC (INA, KDP, PUK, SCIRI). This would not work. Hostility towards the INC was in reality hostility towards Chalabi. It was true that Chalabi was not the easiest person to work with. Bute had a good record in bringing high-grade defectors out of Iraq. The CIA stubbornly refused to recognise this. They unreasonably denigrated the INC because of their fixation with Chalabi. When I mentioned that the INC was penetraded by Iraqi intelligence, Wolfowitz commented that this was probably the case with all the opposition groups: it was something we would have to live with. As to the Kurds, it was true that they were living well (another point to be made in any public dossier on Saddam) and that they feared provoking an incursion by Baghdad, But there were good people among the Kurds, including in particular Salih (?) of the PUK. Wolfowitz brushed over my reference to the absence of SUnni in the INC: there was a big difference between Iraqi and Iranian Shia. The former just wanted to be rid of Saddam.

7 Wolvowitz was pretty dismissive of the desirability of a military coup and of the defector generals in the wings. The latter had blood on their hands. The important thing was to try to have Saddam replaced by something like a functioning democracy. Though imperfect, the Kurdish model was not bad. How to achieve this, I asked? Only through a coalition of all the parties was the answer (we did not get into military planning).

I don't need to add anything.

Talkin' About My Generation

Losing Our Country

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: June 10, 2005

Baby boomers like me grew up in a relatively equal society. In the 1960's America was a place in which very few people were extremely wealthy, many blue-collar workers earned wages that placed them comfortably in the middle class, and working families could expect steadily rising living standards and a reasonable degree of economic security.

But as The Times's series on class in America reminds us, that was another country. The middle-class society I grew up in no longer exists.

Working families have seen little if any progress over the past 30 years. Adjusted for inflation, the income of the median family doubled between 1947 and 1973. But it rose only 22 percent from 1973 to 2003, and much of that gain was the result of wives' entering the paid labor force or working longer hours, not rising wages.

Meanwhile, economic security is a thing of the past: year-to-year fluctuations in the incomes of working families are far larger than they were a generation ago. All it takes is a bit of bad luck in employment or health to plunge a family that seems solidly middle-class into poverty.

But the wealthy have done very well indeed. Since 1973 the average income of the top 1 percent of Americans has doubled, and the income of the top 0.1 percent has tripled.

Why is this happening? I'll have more to say on that another day, but for now let me just point out that middle-class America didn't emerge by accident. It was created by what has been called the Great Compression of incomes that took place during World War II, and sustained for a generation by social norms that favored equality, strong labor unions and progressive taxation. Since the 1970's, all of those sustaining forces have lost their power.

Since 1980 in particular, U.S. government policies have consistently favored the wealthy at the expense of working families - and under the current administration, that favoritism has become extreme and relentless. From tax cuts that favor the rich to bankruptcy "reform" that punishes the unlucky, almost every domestic policy seems intended to accelerate our march back to the robber baron era.

It's not a pretty picture - which is why right-wing partisans try so hard to discredit anyone who tries to explain to the public what's going on.

These partisans rely in part on obfuscation: shaping, slicing and selectively presenting data in an attempt to mislead. For example, it's a plain fact that the Bush tax cuts heavily favor the rich, especially those who derive most of their income from inherited wealth. Yet this year's Economic Report of the President, in a bravura demonstration of how to lie with statistics, claimed that the cuts "increased the overall progressivity of the federal tax system."

The partisans also rely in part on scare tactics, insisting that any attempt to limit inequality would undermine economic incentives and reduce all of us to shared misery. That claim ignores the fact of U.S. economic success after World War II. It also ignores the lesson we should have learned from recent corporate scandals: sometimes the prospect of great wealth for those who succeed provides an incentive not for high performance, but for fraud.

Above all, the partisans engage in name-calling. To suggest that sustaining programs like Social Security, which protects working Americans from economic risk, should have priority over tax cuts for the rich is to practice "class warfare." To show concern over the growing inequality is to engage in the "politics of envy."

But the real reasons to worry about the explosion of inequality since the 1970's have nothing to do with envy. The fact is that working families aren't sharing in the economy's growth, and face growing economic insecurity. And there's good reason to believe that a society in which most people can reasonably be considered middle class is a better society - and more likely to be a functioning democracy - than one in which there are great extremes of wealth and poverty.

Reversing the rise in inequality and economic insecurity won't be easy: the middle-class society we have lost emerged only after the country was shaken by depression and war. But we can make a start by calling attention to the politicians who systematically make things worse in catering to their contributors. Never mind that straw man, the politics of envy. Let's try to do something about the politics of greed.

Krugman's right. This isn't the country I grew up in, nor is it one I want to bequeath to my nieces.

I hope it is not too late to do something to fix it, but I'm not sure that is the case.

Your DNA and Files Please

I am one of those people who is hyper sensitive about privacy. I really don't like using the Harris Teeter card at the grocery store simply because I hate the idea of them keeping a database of everything my family buys. It's not that I think anyone is going to find formula, fruit, cereal, etc. that interesting, but it's none of their business to track what I purchase because there are other ways to keep up with inventory.

Which brings us to one of those moments when reality, science, and popular culture intersect.

Cash, Charge or Fingerprint?
Retailers Experiment With Biometric Payment To Speed Up Service And Prevent Fraud, A Move That Worries Some Privacy Advocates

By Ellen McCarthy
Thursday, June 9, 2005

Three or four days a week, Darren Hiers gets lunch at a Sterling convenience store near the car dealership where he works. He grabs a chicken sandwich and a soda and heads to the checkout counter, where a little gadget scans his index finger and instantly deducts the money from his checking account.

The finger scan used at the shop in Sterling, known as a biometric payment system and made by a Herndon firm, is just starting to be installed at convenience stores and supermarket chains around the country, another step in a revolution that is turning the human body into the ultimate identification card.

Already faces and fingerprints are used to track visitors coming into the country. Computer passwords are being replaced by thumbprints at some companies and iris scans are giving consumers in England and Germany access to their bank accounts at ATMs.

The owner of BioPay LLC, which makes the technology used at the store, predicts the finger scan soon will be ubiquitous, offering speed and convenience for consumers. But civil libertarians have raised privacy concerns, citing some recent problems. In February, ChoicePoint Inc., a background-screening company that collects personal information -- including biometric data -- said it accidentally sold more than 100,000 individual profiles to identity thieves.

Lowe's Food Stores Inc. will test BioPay's system at four of its 110 supermarkets. Next spring, it plans to install the technology at the rest of its stores, most of which are in North Carolina. More than 80 Piggly Wiggly Carolina Co. grocery stores in South Carolina and Georgia already have biometric payment systems made by Pay by Touch, a San Francisco company.

"Kids growing up now can't imagine that you needed a cord to use your telephone. Soon they're going to say, 'You mean you have to carry around a piece of plastic or a piece of paper to go buy something?' " Robinson said.

Now the latent science geek in me (the one who loved science until Calculus came into the equation) finds this fascinating. The Post even does us one better a provides a neat graphic on how this works:

The article goes into some length as to why they don't use fingerprints, per se, and what this machine can/can't do. The machine looks very similar to the one in the movie Gattaca , a movie that freaked my wife out a great deal. The article also point out that, at least publically, the companies are very concerned with computer security and will do all they can to protect consumer's information.

And while I'm sure they will, at least at first, not abuse the information they are collecting, how long will it take for some Justice Dept official to decide they need your shopping data because you've fit the profile of a terror subject. Perhaps the CEO decides he can increase the stock value of his company by selling that personal information to one of these clearing houses that collects data on people? All he has to do is send a brief notification of the program, and if he follows the credit card companies, the print will be so small that even Jiminy Cricket won't be able to read it.

Or even worse, maybe someone simply misplaces your data and you don't find out for a couple of weeks that your data went fubar? Heck, that happens so often now you almost can't go a week without a company reporting that personal information has gone missing.

There are quite a few Lowes around here, but I would be shocked if people rushed to sign up for this. I really don't mind the 60 seconds the article claims it takes to do a credit/debit card scan. The 40 some seconds saved isn't going to make that much of a difference in my day. But I do agree with the guy in the article that for my kids, they won't think anything of it ("Hey dad, is it true that when you first worked at a grocery store you had to enter the prices in by hand?"). Society should debate the merit of these machines first, before being placed out there with a laissez-faire attitude and the assumption that the public is informed.

What do you bumpers think about this great leap into the unknown? Would you be willing to sign up for a system like this at a store near you or are there other checks/balances that need to be in place first? What's the next step?

A False Act

Bush Urges Congress to Keep Patriot Act Intact

By DAVID STOUT
Published: June 9, 2005

WASHINGTON, June 9 - President Bush offered a ringing defense today of a much debated law passed after the Sept. 11 attacks, asserting that it has not stepped on civil liberties, as its critics contend, but has protected America from terrorist threats.

"The Patriot Act closed dangerous gaps in America's law enforcement and intelligence capabilities, gaps that terrorists exploited when they attacked us," Mr. Bush said in a speech at the Ohio State Patrol Academy in Columbus.

The U.S.A. Patriot Act, passed overwhelmingly by Congress shortly after Sept. 11, 2001, broadened the F.B.I.'s wiretapping authority and other surveillance powers in ways that its supporters say are helping to thwart terrorists but that its critics say are trampling on rights enshrined in the Constitution.

Sixteen provisions of the law are to expire at the end of the year, and a spirited debate is under way on Capitol Hill. Some lawmakers want to keep the current provisions, or even further bolster law enforcement's powers. Other lawmakers say those powers have done little, if anything, to make the country safer and ought to be repealed.

Senator Russell D. Feingold, a Wisconsin Democrat and member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Mr. Bush's speech amounted to "a classic bait and switch."

"He once again ignored bipartisan concerns about the Patriot Act and presented a false choice to the American people - that we have to reauthorize the Patriot Act without any changes or leave our country vulnerable to terrorist attacks," Mr. Feingold said. He said many lawmakers in both parties had concluded that portions of the act infringed on freedom.

The Patriot Act made it easier for intelligence officers to share information with law enforcement agents by lowering a bureaucratic "wall" long in place. Critics have said that that aspect of the law has led to situations in which law-abiding citizens who are neither spies nor criminals find themselves victims of snooping into their private affairs.

The president categorically rejected those complaints. "Finding our enemies in the war on terror is tough enough," he said. "Law enforcement officers should not be denied vital information their colleagues already have."

Gather round all of the young'uns. I've got a story to tell about a mythological creature that once roamed this land of ours. It's scientific name was Principleous Conservatos.

These creatures stated a set of beliefs, that government activities were a cruel necessity but should be limited whenever possible. They also were the first to raise the alarm whenever the long arm of the federal or state government would start to intrude on their rights and liberties. While these creatures railed against many programs that benifited the public as a whole, like welfare or social security, they were consistant in their beliefs and could be respected for that.

No longer do these beast travel. They have been corrupted and replaced by a breed that talks like them, and claims to be their intellectual heirs. Instead, they are a bunch that like the arm of government perfectly fine so long as it benefits their group and punishes their enemies. And best of all, so long as they never clearly define who the enemy is or what they are fighting against, they can keep fighting it for as long as they want and declare victory since there is no way to disprove that claim.

Take a look at this act. Their leader claims to be protecting us with this and even makes the claim that by not extending the powers , he can't protect us. If he can't protect us, then why did he get that job in the first place? Since when is a "ringing defense" of one example the reason to gut a document that has stood the test of time for over 200 years? How can he lead the land of the free and the brave if he makes us the opressed and scared? A true conservative would be alarmed at this grab of power, but there are only fossils left to chirp on the news shows and soon they will be gone except in the history books.

Idle Speculation

The guessing game on Supreme Court nominations has already begun. MSNBC's Tom Curry looks at the records of three of the judges most often mentioned as possible Supremes.

Critical view of Roberts Assessing John Roberts, Seth Rosenthal, legal director of the Alliance for Justice, a coalition of liberal groups that has opposed many Bush nominees, said, “He’s only been on the bench two years, so the most important thing is to ensure that the Senate very carefully question him about his judicial philosophy.”

Rosenthal noted that Roberts had, while serving in the Justice Department in both the Reagan and George H. W. Bush administrations, “helped craft the legal policies of those administrations, policies that would weaken the voting rights of African-Americans, undo the reproductive rights of women, and eviscerate congressionally created litigation rights of environmentalists.”

In 2002, the Washington Post editorial page, which often takes a liberal view of things, waxed enthusiastic about McConnell, calling him, “One of the best qualified nominees a president of either party has advanced for a court of appeals vacancy in many years… the sort of person who would bring intellectual range, depth and independent-mindedness to the bench.”

A Senate Republican aide involved in judicial nomination matters, who spoke on condition of anonymity, voiced skepticism about McConnell’s view of stare decisis, the principle that judges should give deference to precedents established in previous cases.

“There’s lots of suspicion he loves stare decisis so much that he’d never touch Roe,” the GOP aide said of McConnell. “That’s the dividing line: whether he’s willing to operate with an open mind, or whether he is so pledged to stare decisis that he couldn’t have an originalist view,” that is, a view that the Constitution must be interpreted in line with what the authors of specific constitutional provisions intended.

While McConnell did write in 1998 that Roe v. Wade was “an embarrassment to those who take constitutional law seriously,” the GOP Senate aide said, “that doesn’t mean much if he is a firm believer in stare decisis.”

Luttig's critique of 'activism'
Luttig, appointed to the appeals court when he was only 37, has spoken out eloquently on the need for judges to be non-political. “There is no such thing as ‘good’ or ‘justifiable’ judicial activism; all ‘activism’ is in defiance of law — ‘law’ defined as the politics of the people, not the politics of individual, unelected, life-tenured judges,” Luttig said in a 2003 speech to the American Consitution Society.

But Rosenthal takes issue with some of Luttig's rulings: “In the name of state’s rights, he takes a radical, muscular view of the court’s power to strike down popularly supported federal laws; but on the other hand he takes a radically restrictive, anemic view of federal courts’ power to remedy violations of constitutionally protected rights and freedoms. For instance, he voted to strike down Virginia’s partial birth abortion act.”

The confirmation process has become a campaign and the nominee must sell himself to the American people. One error Bork made in his confirmation hearings was to sound like a chilly academic.

When Sen. Allan Simpson, R- Wyo., one of Bork’s supporters on the Judiciary Committee, asked him why he wanted to be a justice of the Supreme Court, Bork said, “It would be an intellectual feast just to be there.” After his Senate defeat, Bork admitted that answer was a mistake.

Given the television-driven nature of confirmation hearings, there’s a value in having a personal story to tell.

Tragic life experience
Judge Luttig has had a wrenching life experience which may make him a more empathetic figure than other nominees.

Luttig’s father was murdered in a carjacking in Tyler, Texas in 1994. Although Luttig might be reluctant to talk about his father’s murder in a confirmation hearing, every profile of him would mention it.

Sekulow said, “When you look at Mike Luttig’s family tragedy that he has dealt with, people can relate to those things. Others have stories too: Mike McConnell went to an inner-city church and worked with inner-city youth, there’s a lot of good stories.”

Readers with "alternative" views of these judges are welcome to leave them in comments. What I'm hearing from lawyers who know these guys is that Tom Curry's treatment is more sympathetic than true. What are you hearing?

Open Thread

I've got errands to run for the remainder of the afternoon, so guest bloggers, feel free to post at will from now through the weekend. I'll be taking the desktop to the doctor on Saturday and will be offline while I'm at the shop (my brother's house) overnight. I also need to finish up work on the new avian flu venture that I'm working on with several experts--more on that when we're ready to go live, hopefully over the weekend some time.

I'm thinking about my vacation--the first I've been able to afford since 1998--and looking forward to my trip to Ontario. How about you? Do you have travel plans this summer?

Prevarication

Salon is becoming a daily necessity.

Dr. Juan Cole:

Bush and Cheney declare that the guerrillas are losing and their numbers and activities are falling. This sunny position may temporarily help prevent Bush's falling poll numbers from sinking into the gutter, but it bears no resemblance to reality. The guerrilla war is threatening the entire American project in Iraq. The northern city of Mosul, with a population of over a million, had been quiet and relatively pro-American until November 2004. After the U.S. military launched its attack on the city of Fallujah, maintaining that it was a guerrilla center, enmity toward the United States spread rapidly across Iraq, and Mosul changed radically. Some 4,000 policemen resigned in fear of their lives, and Mosul became unstable and a site of continual guerrilla attacks.

Bush also misunderstands the significance of the Jan. 30 elections. Contrary to his hollow claims that the elections signaled the triumph of Iraqi unity, they were in fact a victory for sectarianism of a sort that did not exist in Iraq before the invasion. The Sunni Arabs, who largely did not vote, have only 17 members in the 275-seat parliament. They therefore are grossly underrepresented among the voting delegates on the committee charged with writing a new constitution, a situation that has contributed to the ongoing insurgency and threatens Iraq's future. The Shiites and Kurds both voted enthusiastically. The Shiite religious parties that had been close to Ayatollah Khomeini and the Iranian hard-liners swept to power in the Legislature.

And a highly dangerous phase lies ahead, as the new Iraqi government must decide how much independence to grant the Kurdish north. The future of the ethnically mixed city of Kirkuk, with its vast oil reserves, is a particularly volatile subject. If Iraqi Arabs and Kurds -- whose peshmerga are the most potent Iraqi militia -- are not able to reach agreement, the possibility of major clashes, even a civil war, cannot be ruled out.

And there is scant evidence to support Bush's claim that the war in Iraq is helping spread democracy in the Middle East, and no evidence whatsoever that the war is making America safer. The Egyptian elections are not going to be substantially more democratic. When democratic elections have been held, the results are hardly those that Bush and his neocon brain trust were hoping for. Elections in Lebanon, in which the militant Shiite group Hezbollah won overwhelmingly in the south, revealed the deep religious and ethnic fissures in that country. The postponed Palestinian elections are likely to increase the power of Hamas. The one-sidedly pro-Israel Bush administration has shown no willingness to deal realistically with either of those militant groups, and it has only recently and reluctantly adopted even a passive stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As a result, the single issue that most fuels anti-Americanism throughout the region remains incendiary.

Meanwhile, reports of Quran desecration and mistreatment of Muslim prisoners, including brutal killings, have brought rage at America to all-time highs throughout the Muslim world, including the strategically crucial nations of Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Bush administration is so hated that the very idea of American-style democracy is now tainted in the eyes of many Muslims eyes -- and not just radicals. It is difficult to see how this is making America safer.

As journalist Sarah Whalen pointed out in the Arab News, the increasingly effective guerrilla war has vindicated Baghdad Bob. "Baghdad Bob" (his real name was Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf) was the spokesman for the Iraqi regime who issued an endless stream of ludicrous pronouncements about how the mighty Iraq army was turning Baghdad into a mass grave for Americans, and so on. Today, many of his predictions, such as the one that the Iraqis would hurl "bullets and shoes" at the invading U.S. military, not bouquets of roses, have come true. But if imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, Sahhaf has been honored on a higher plane. His rhetorical strategy, of simply denying reality, has now been taken over by his arch-nemesis, George W. Bush.

Real News

Astonishing. I've begun watching the noon (Eastern) broadcast of CNN International (not an option on my cable system) and they had a report on Iraqi civilian deaths. There is real news on this channel. I wonder if it would change the political climate if people could see it.

Instead, We Are Seeing....

Bush lied about war? Nope, no news there!
Why did it take more than a month for the U.S. press to report on the serious revelations in the Downing Street memo?

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Eric Boehlert

June 9, 2005 | Halfway through Sunday's "Meet the Press," host Tim Russert, interviewing Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman, asked about a secret, top-level British government memorandum. Consisting of minutes from a July 23, 2002, meeting attended by Prime Minister Tony Blair and his closest advisors, the memo revealed their impression that the Bush administration, eight months before the start of the Iraq war in 2003, had already decided to invade and that Washington seemed more concerned with justifying a war than preventing one.

The memo was leaked this year to the Times of London, which printed it on May 1. The story, coming on the eve of Blair's reelection, generated extensive press coverage in Britain. In setting up his question to Mehlman on Sunday, Russert said, "Let me turn to the now famous Downing Street memo" (emphasis added).

Famous? It would be famous in America if the D.C. press corps functioned the way it's supposed to. Russert's June 5 reference, five weeks after the story broke, represented the first time NBC News had even mentioned the document or the controversy surrounding it. In fact, Russert's query was the first time any of the network news divisions addressed the issue seriously. In an age of instant communications, the American mainstream media has taken an exceedingly long time -- as if news of the memo had traveled by vessel across the Atlantic Ocean -- to report on the leaked document. Nor has it considered its grave implications -- namely, that President Bush lied to the American people and Congress during the run-up to the war with Iraq when he insisted over and over again that war was his administration's last option.

And yet, as Russert's weeks-late inquiry illustrates, the Downing Street memo story has also refused to simply fade away. Championed by progressive activists, media advocates, nearly 100 Democratic members of Congress, liberal radio hosts and bloggers, ombudsmen, a handful of columnists and an army of newspaper readers -- who have flooded editors with letters demanding that the story be reported -- the British memo continues to enjoy a peculiar afterlife. A small band of protesters, led by a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel, even held a sidewalk vigil outside a Tampa, Fla., television station over the weekend, demanding that it "Air the truth!" about the memo.

At Tuesday's joint White House press briefing, Bush and Blair were finally asked about the memo in public, an event that the press dutifully chronicled. But the two leaders, not accepting follow-up questions, simply denied the accuracy of the memo's contents, while circumventing the central question of why Blair's most senior intelligence officer believed the White House had already decided on war in the summer of 2002. (Bush finished his response to the memo question with his well-worn catchphrase, "The world is better off without Saddam Hussein in power.")

The fact that it took five weeks for more than a handful of Washington reporters to focus on the memo highlights a striking disconnect between some news consumers and mainstream news producers. The memo story epitomizes a mainstream press corps that is genuinely afraid to ask tough questions and write tough stories about the Bush administration. Worse, in the case of the Downing Street memo, it simply refuses to report on the existence of a plainly newsworthy document.

"This is where all the work conservatives and the administration have done in terms of bullying the press, making it less willing to write confrontational pieces -- this is where it's paid off," says David Brock, CEO of Media Matters for America, a liberal media advocacy group. "It's a glaring example of omission."

"I think it exacerbates the sense among some [of our] listeners that NPR is not taking on the Bush administration," notes Jeffrey Dvorkin, ombudsman for National Public Radio, who continues to receive listener complaints about the missing memo story. As of Tuesday, NPR had aired just two references to the Downing Street memo, and both occurred in passing conversation, without giving listeners the full context or the details of the memo. Asked about the network's slim coverage, Dvorkin says, "I was surprised. It's a bigger story than we've given it. It deserves more attention."

Slowly, the Downing Street memo is getting that attention. "Stories are starting to trickle in now only because so many ordinary people are raising hell about it," says David Swanson, co-founder of AfterDowningStreet.org, which launched on May 26. This week, thanks to constant exposure on the Air America radio network, the site is receiving 1.7 million hits a day, according to Swanson. "My colleagues are doing more radio shows than we can fit in during a day."

The memo provides plenty to talk about -- particularly the passage (no doubt memorized by agitated war critics) that refers to Sir Richard Dearlove, the head of the British Secret Intelligence Service (referred to only as "C" in the memo), and his impressions from a visit to the United States:

"C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the U.N. route ... There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."

That more reporters, editors and producers didn't grasp the obvious significance of the memo remains baffling. As Mark Danner spelled out in the June 9 issue of the New York Review of Books, the memo helps establish five key facts in understanding how the still-deadly war in Iraq unfolded:

"1. By mid-July 2002, eight months before the war began, President Bush had decided to invade and occupy Iraq.

"2. Bush had decided to 'justify' the war 'by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD.'

"3. Already, 'the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.'

"4. Many at the top of the [U.S.] administration did not want to seek approval from the United Nations (going 'the U.N. route').

"5. Few in Washington seemed much interested in the aftermath of the war. "

Yet despite the news peg, the mainstream media demonstrated a breathtaking lack of interest. According to TVEyes, an around-the-clock monitoring service, between May 1 and June 6 the story received approximately 20 mentions on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS combined. (With Blair's arrival in Washington Tuesday, there was a slight spike in mentions but still very little reporting of substance.) By contrast, during the same five-week period, the same outlets found time to mention 263 times the tabloid controversy that erupted when a photograph showing Saddam Hussein in his underwear was leaked to the British press.

Boehlert should cast a wider net. In the same five week period, how many minutes were devoted to missing blue-eyed, white women/girls, Michael Jackson, LA car chases and the Pope.

Bad Blood

Leaders of Iraq Back Militias, Widening Rift With Sunnis

By EDWARD WONG
Published: June 9, 2005

BAGHDAD, Iraq, June 8 - The rift between the Iraqi government and hostile Sunni Arabs widened further on Wednesday as the country's leaders came out in support of ethnic and sectarian militias that Sunnis fear could be used against them.

Top Sunni Arab leaders also demanded that a 55-member committee that is to begin writing a new constitution add at least 25 Sunni seats with full voting powers. There was no immediate response from the Shiite-led committee, but in recent days its members have proposed adding 12 to 15 nonvoting seats for Sunni Arabs.

The announcement regarding militias was the first time the new government had publicly backed armed ethnic and sectarian groups, and it was an implicit rebuke to American officials, who have repeatedly asked that the government disband all militias in the country. The largest militias are the Kurdish pesh merga and an Iranian-trained Shiite militia that Sunni leaders have blamed for attacks against them.

The remarks were made at a morning news conference that was attended by Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari, a Shiite Arab; President Jalal Talabani, a Kurd and a militia leader himself; and Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, the leader of the Shiite political party that created the Iranian-trained militia, known as the Badr Organization. The briefing was held in Mr. Hakim's headquarters to mark his militia's second anniversary in the new Iraq and to rebut recent criticisms of the Badr from Sunni leaders.

The joint appearance of Mr. Talabani and the Shiite leaders seemed to indicate that Shiite and Kurdish leaders had reached an understanding that their respective militias should continue to exist.

Iraqi officials say the militias will be placed under the nominal control of the Defense and Interior Ministries. Kurdish leaders have consistently made clear, however, that the pesh merga will actually remain under the command of the Kurdistan regional government and, for all practical purposes, will be independent of the central government.

Sunnis claim Shiite militia carries out campaign of threats, murder

By Tom Lasseter

Knight Ridder Newspapers

BAGHDAD, Iraq - A militant Shiite Muslim group with close ties to Iran has gained enormous power since Iraq's January elections and now is accused of conducting a terror campaign against Iraq's Sunni Muslim minority that includes kidnappings, threats and murders.

But in spite of concern among Sunni Arabs that the Badr Brigade is behind a series of brutal attacks against Sunni clerics, including cases where victims appear to have been tortured with electric drills, the group was praised by top Iraqi government officials on Wednesday.

"Today, there is a sacred mission of sweeping away the remnants of the dictatorship and defeating the terrorism, and your role with your brothers in the (Kurdish militia) is required and necessary to fulfill this sacred mission," Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, a Sunni Kurd, told a meeting of Badr members.

At the same gathering, Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari praised Badr for its restraint, saying "force without integrity is evil and integrity without force is weakness."

The Badr Brigade was organized and trained by Iran's Revolutionary Guards in the early 1980s and served as the armed wing of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, an organization of exiled Iraqi Shiites then based in Iran. During the 1980s it gained fame for its guerrilla raids against Iraqi military units during the Iran-Iraq war.

Now, with the Supreme Council leading the Shiite coalition that dominated Iraq's elections, Badr members have gained unprecedented authority. The interior minister, who controls the nation's police and commando forces, is a former Supreme Council official with close ties to Badr. At least six provincial governors, including Baghdad's, are Badr members, according to the organization.

Where is the drive to civil war coming from? It would appear to be an incompetent occupation.

Polishing Tobacco's Knob

Tobacco Witnesses Were Told To Ease Up
Justice Dept. Sought Softened Sanctions

By Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, June 9, 2005; Page A04

Government lawyers asked two of their own witnesses to soften recommendations about sanctions that should be imposed on the tobacco industry if it lost a landmark civil racketeering case, one of the witnesses and sources familiar with the case said yesterday.

Matt Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, said the Justice Department's lead trial lawyer called him May 9 to say her superiors wanted him to scale back the recommendations he had made in written testimony. They sought to remove his suggestions for a ban on tobacco company methods of marketing to young people before Myers took the stand. Myers said he refused to do so.

A second witness, scientific expert Michael Eriksen, also departed from recommendations in his earlier written testimony, court documents show. Eriksen declined to comment, but four separate sources familiar with the case said Justice Department lawyers had asked him to do so.

The two men were called by the government as part of its lawsuit, which contends that the nation's largest tobacco companies engaged in a 50-year conspiracy to defraud the public about the dangers and addictiveness of smoking.

They were considered crucial in helping the government establish financial penalties and other sanctions to be imposed on cigarette manufacturers to help prevent young people from becoming smokers and to protect against what the government calls additional fraud on the public.

On Tuesday, after eight months of courtroom argument, Justice Department lawyers announced that they would ask the industry to pay $10 billion -- rather than the $130 billion previously recommended by a government expert witness -- for smoking cessation programs. The reduction stunned anti-smoking activists who have followed the six-year-old case, and prompted tobacco lawyers to say in court Wednesday that the government's case had fallen apart.

According to sources involved in the case, high-level officials at Justiceordered the cut despite objections from career lawyers who have worked on the trial, in some cases years.

Justice Department spokesman John Nowacki said the department thought some of Myers's suggestions would violate the tobacco companies' free-speech rights. He said he had no information about Eriksen's testimony.

Of the penalties recommended by the government, Nowacki said: "All steps were taken for legally appropriate reasons."

Yesterday, Democrats on Capitol Hill and public health officials contended that the sharp penalty reduction was an attempt by the Bush administration to bail out the tobacco industry and soften the blow of what had been the largest civil racketeering case in history.

Seven Democratic Senate and House members called on the Justice Department's inspector general to investigate possible political interference by Bush appointees in the government's tobacco case, citing news reports that Associate Attorney General Robert D. McCallum Jr., a former lawyer for tobacco giant R.J. Reynolds, ordered the downsizing of the penalties. Lawmakers also questioned why McCallum was allowed to participate in the government's case.

"The Justice Department's approach to tobacco litigation should be based on the facts of the case and not political favors to the tobacco industry," wrote Rep. Henry A. Waxman, (D-Calif.) and Rep. Martin T. Meehan (D-Mass.). "It is highly unusual for government prosecutors to abandon evidence-based testimony by their key witnesses at the last moment in a major trial." Democratic Sens. Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.), Frank Lautenberg (N.J.), Richard J. Durbin (Ill.), Ron Wyden (Ore.) and Tom Harkin (Iowa) made a similar request.

When the trial opened in September, the government asked that the industry be forced to turn over $280 billion in past profits, plus billions more for smoking cessation programs. But an appellate court ruled in February that the companies could not be forced to return past profits, leaving the cessation program as the most significant penalty the industry faced.

We shouldn't let this one go. The corruption is just too obvious. It's too easy to be cynical and sigh and think "Let it go." This fluffer it just too big.

Howl's Castle and Miyazaki's Art

For those of you in selected cities this weekend.... I'm jealous. Really jealous. I mean the type of jealous that makes me doodle out evil plots on the back of receipts and grumble under my breath. Especially if you don't take advantage of this opportunity.

See, I love animation. It's one of my favorite art forms and the most amazing director of my lifetime has a new movie coming out this weeked. He's someone who can blend the traditional 2 Dimentional art with the newer computer based graphics almost flawlessly. He's someone who understands that for a good movie, the story must come first, second, and third. It's even somone being promoted by Disney, although he a direct competitor in some markets.

The director is Hayao Miyazaki from Japan and he is the George Lucas/Steven Speilburg/Francis Ford Copolla of Japan and animation. In other words, he's the real deal.

Now his movies are a bit odd for most Americans and not just because the English voices are dubbed for the characters. Miyazaki writes movies for all ages and best of all, his animals DON'T SING.

I was first exposed to Miyazaki when I saw this movie on the big screen. Really, the only reasons I went to see it were that Neil Gaiman had adapted the screenplay and that I wanted to prove to my fiancee that I wasn't kidding when I said that there are other options besides Disney. We were both floored by the visuals and the complex storyline, where there are three main characters all of whom are 3-Dimentional.

To their credit, after the success of Mononoke, Disney released Miyazaki's next movie Spirited Away which did so well that it won the first Oscar for Animated Films

His newest film, Howl's Moving Castle, is opening this weekend, but I've been told by reliable sources in town that it won't be coming to the RDU for a while *grumble*. We've got over 1 million people and that's not enough?? No respect, I'm telling ya, no respect. Anyways, what I love about Miyazaki's current and earlier releases is that the stories are fascinating and his imagination opens up completely new worlds to me, the viewer. My wife loves the strong female characters he has in almost everyone of his movies. And best of all, most of his movies are written for adults but not in such a way that children are left out of the equation or talked down to. When I say "aimed at adults", I mean that in a good way and not in a Madagascar way with pop culture references everywhere (though those are fun too).

If you are curious about the director and his larger body of work, the blogger Ocrinus is also a huge fan and has writen about Miyazaki and his films both here and here .

Both of my kids have stuffed Tortoros on the shelves, but I haven't shown them the movie yet (soon though). If you want something different this summer with, dare I say it, some substance with your pocorn, check out Howl's. Apple has the quicktime trailer here and I don't think you'll be disappointed.

Hand to Mouth

A City Teaches Homeless, and Fights a Trend
By TAMAR LEWIN

PHOENIX - Just after lunch at Pappas Regional Elementary School, where all 598 students come from homeless families, a small boy reported to Erin Angelini, the social worker, that he had no idea where to go after school. The night before, he and his mother were evicted from the motel where they had been living.

"At most schools, kindergarten kids don't know the word evicted, but here they all do," Ms. Angelini said.

After asking if the boy's mother had told him she would pick him up at school, and hearing that, no, she had been sleeping when he left, Ms. Angelini rushed to the motel to look for the woman. But the manager confirmed that she had left, unable to pay her bill. On a hunch, Ms. Angelini called the city's Family Services Center, where the woman was waiting in the lobby, and worked out an emergency plan that would allow her and her son to stay at the motel for one more week.

It was a stopgap. But then, the school itself is a stopgap for children whose families live in shelters, in parks, doubled up in cramped quarters with relatives, or in a strip of dingy motels long since abandoned by tourists.

By all rights, schools like Pappas Elementary should be near extinction. After all, a 2002 federal law prohibited separate schools for homeless children. The law also guaranteed homeless children the right to stay in their original schools, and required every district to name a liaison for homeless students.

Many districts have made tremendous strides in serving homeless children in mainstream schools, with social workers who help arrange transportation, clothing and food. And many districts discovered that when they trained school personnel to identify homeless students, they began to notice, and serve, many more such children in their classrooms.

But thanks to strong local backing in Congress, the Pappas schools - there are three campuses in Phoenix, serving more than 1,100 students - were exempted from the law, along with schools for homeless children in three California counties.

"The clear national trend is toward inclusion, as the federal law requires," said Barbara Duffield, policy director of the National Association for the Education of Homeless Children and Youth. "As a basic civil rights issue, children shouldn't be segregated because of their housing status. They need the stability of their home schools, which should provide the services they need."

But just as historically black colleges and women's colleges continue to draw students even after decades of integration and affirmative action, the Pappas schools are going strong. For some students, there is comfort in being at an institution shaped around their experiences and needs.

"We had the children going to another school, but we like this one better, because they get more attention," said Jose Cabrero, who sends four grandchildren he is raising to Pappas. "When the last two came, we didn't have any paperwork for them or anything, but they got right in."

The Pappas schools' very separateness makes Phoenix's homeless children highly visible, attracting a flood of community donations, enough to maintain a food pantry where students' families can get groceries, and a toy room for birthday presents, and a clothing room where every child can choose three new outfits a month.

The school has mentors and tutors who work with children individually. It has showers and a clinic, and every child gets breakfast and lunch. But there are more subtle nods to the children's situations, too.

For children in homeless families, who move frequently, transportation is often the biggest hurdle to school attendance. But the Pappas buses shift routes as children move, and outreach workers track where the families are living. Most of the students get off the bus in the morning carrying nothing - no backpack, no books. Teachers know that homework is hard to manage in the students' living situations.

"If a child falls asleep at a regular school, you wake him up and tell him to pay attention," said Dina Vance, the principal. "But when I taught here, I'd pick up the child and carry him to a spot where he could sleep for a few hours. This is a place where these kids feel comfortable, where they're free to pop up and say, 'I need a shower.' "

Pappas is not academically outstanding - no surprise, since most of the 25 or so new students who arrive at the school each week are two or three years below grade level.

Classes are large, and in one squirmy first grade, the teacher spent an interminable half-hour on a simple worksheet with pictures of things that started or ended with "k" - an activity that engaged no more than a handful of the children.

But last year, Pappas, previously an "underperforming" school on state report cards, met state and federal standards.

Sandra E. Dowling, who founded the school 25 years ago with eight students and is now superintendent of the Maricopa County Schools, said that in principle, it would be better for homeless children to stay in their old neighborhood schools.

"I would love to see these kids in mainstream schools getting all the support and help they need," Dr. Dowling said. "But as a practical matter, that's not what happens."

I wonder if you have any idea of how little it takes to become homeless?

I was there once in 1984. I was so close once again in January of this year. For most people who don't have much savings, and poor people don't, all it takes is missing a paycheck or two. Or a little family violence.

The anti-welfare state Repubs aren't in any danger of having this happen to them, of course. The Bush econonomy exists for their benefit, one which makes it is to think Calvinist thoughts about poor people, since they never had to work very hard themselves. The part I don't get is that my Repub relatives work their fingers to the bone and don't have anything to show for it and are still Repub. How crazy is that?

Vouchers Ahoy!

Fla. Supreme Court hears school voucher challenge

By Michael Peltier
Tue Jun 7, 2005

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (Reuters) - Florida's highest court heard a challenge to Gov. Jeb Bush's school voucher plan on Tuesday in a nationally watched battle over whether taxpayer money can be funneled to private and parochial schools.

The arguments before the Florida Supreme Court involved a six-year legal fight between Bush and critics of a program that provides tax-funded vouchers to students at public schools that fail repeatedly to meet performance standards, the first such statewide program in the United States.

The court did not give a time frame for when it would rule but school officials requested a decision before the new school year starts in August. The case is being watched by other states considering voucher programs and may ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

More than 700 Florida students use the "Opportunity Scholarship Program" vouchers to attend private schools, more than half at church-based schools. Lower courts have twice ruled the program unconstitutional but it has remained in effect during the appeals.

Critics said the program violated the state constitution's separation of church and state and its mandate to provide a free system of high-quality public education.

A provision dating back to 1885 says: "No revenue of the state ... shall ever be taken from the public treasury directly or indirectly in aid of any church, sect or religious denomination or in aid of any sectarian institution."

"The Florida Constitution means something very specific," John West, an attorney for the voucher opponents, told the justices. "It means no funds -- that first word is quite clear -- no revenues shall be taken from the state, directly or indirectly, in aid of sectarian institutions."

Supporters said vouchers threw struggling students and their parents a lifeline when a public school failed to meet their needs.

They said Florida already provided funds to private organizations with religious ties, such as nonprofit hospitals. As long as the state fulfilled its constitutional duty to provide quality public education, it was free to provide other funds for private and religious programs, they said.

For many Progressives/Liberals this educational issue largely fell off of the radar when Zelman v. Harris-Simmons in 2002 declared that the Clevland city school system's voucher programs for private and parochial schools did not violate the establishment clause of the Constitution. Many people, like myself, that hold the separation of church and stae very near and dear to their hearts wept that day and then turned their fight to the state courts.

Many state constitutions have stricter provisions as to how t heir monies can be spent visa via religion and religious activities. As we can see in this article, Florida is one of those. For many Conservatives, it might seem odd that a Progressive like me is hoping the states can stop these ponzi schemes but anything that can limit or stop the drain of resources from our *badly* underfunded public schools is worth backing (unless a Bush is involved... then I might grab a magnifying glass and look for fine print).

The sad thing is that private schools, for the most part, are really not that much better than public schools. That point, at least here in North Carolina, has been driven home by many of the charter schools that have opened up with taxpayer's $$ only to find that the same students that struggle in regular public school also struggle at the charter schools too, though some are most definately helped by the smaller class size provided the school is teaching what it should.

Bittersweet

Senate Confirms Brown Judgeship After Bitter Battle

By Maura Reynolds, Times Staff Writer

3:12 PM PDT, June 8, 2005

WASHINGTON — The Senate voted today to confirm California's Janice Rogers Brown to a seat on the prestigious Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., a job that could place her on President Bush's short list of potential Supreme Court nominees.

Brown, who has served on the California Supreme Court since 1996, was confirmed by a vote of 56-43. Only one Democrat crossed party lines to support her nomination; both California senators voted against her.

Democrats vehemently opposed Brown's nomination, decrying her as a conservative ideologue who infuses her court rulings with her political views.

"Whether one is from the left or the right, this nominee should be rejected," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said before the vote. "We should reject all nominees who twist the law to their own ideological bent."

The circuit court of appeals for the District of Columbia is considered the second-highest court in the country, behind the Supreme Court, and is frequently a steppingstone for judges to that court. Three of the Supreme Court's nine sitting justices were elevated from the D.C. court.

"There's no doubt she'll be on any future Republican short list for the Supreme Court as a conservative African American woman," said Sean Rushton, executive director of the Committee for Justice, an advocacy group that promotes the president's conservative judicial nominees. "It's the very knowledge of this that explains why she has been opposed with such fervor by the left."

Brown's nomination had been stalled since November 2003 by a Democratic filibuster. A private pact between a group of moderate Republicans and Democrats last month that ended the Senate deadlock over judges cleared the way for her confirmation vote.

Brown was the second judge confirmed as a result of the moderates' agreement. The first was Priscilla Owen, who was sworn in this week to the federal court of appeals in New Orleans. The third is expected to be Alabama Atty. Gen. William Pryor, whose confirmation vote is scheduled Thursday.

During the debate over her nomination, Republicans praised Brown's rise from humble origins and accused Democrats of unfairly disparaging her legal rulings.

"She has lived the American dream and she's lived it well," said Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) "She didn't just complain about her status. She worked and she tried to get an education and she applied herself, and she's been given opportunities and she's taken advantage of them.... I really do believe that most of the opposition to her has been just simply the fact that she is an African-American conservative woman."

Brown's nomination was opposed by the Congressional Black Caucus, whose members from the House of Representatives marched to the Senate side of the U.S. Capitol in advance of the vote to urge her nomination be rejected.

"The test of a qualified judicial nominee is not whether or not that person has their own political views. Every jurist surely does," said Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.). "The test is whether he or she can effectively subordinate their views in order to decide each case on the facts and the merits alone... Janice Rogers Brown has shown that she is not simply a judge with very strong political views, she is a political activist who happens to be a judge."

The "compromise" is looking worse every day.

The Minutes

WaPo's Dan Froomkin does his usual masterful job of rounding a number of related stories from the last two days. I wish the national desk reporters were half as sharp as he is.

The Memo Comes In From the Cold

By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Wednesday, June 8, 2005; 2:09 PM

After six weeks in the political wilderness, the Downing Street Memo yesterday finally burst into the White House -- and into the headlines.

The memo, which dates back to 2002, conveys a British intelligence official's conclusion that President Bush was manipulating intelligence to build support for war with Iraq -- and that he was already set on invasion long before acknowledging as much in public. The Sunday Times of London first published a leaked version on May 1.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair was visiting with Bush yesterday, and when a question about the memo came up at their abbreviated joint press conference -- the first time Bush has been asked to comment about it -- Blair threw himself at its potentially explosive allegations in an attempt to muffle the damage.

Bush then followed, insisting that he had tried to resolve the standoff with Saddam Hussein peacefully, but that in any case the world is better off with Hussein gone.

But the hard-to-explain memo today is making headlines far and wide, after more than a month during which the American press largely kept its silence on the issue.

It remains unclear how big of a blowup the memo represents for the White House. Bush partisans consider it either old news, or flatly wrong, or both.

And the American press still demonstrates no intention of aggressively following it up.

But even if the memo doesn't detonate, there are suddenly several other potential scandals sputtering away in the press today to cause the White House worry.

· --The New York Times is reporting that a White House official with ties to the oil industry repeatedly edited government climate reports to play down global warming issues.

· --The Guardian reports on new State Department documents suggesting that Bush's decision not to sign the Kyoto global warming treaty was partly a result of pressure from ExxonMobil.

· --The Texas Observer and the Associated Press are reporting that two Indian tribes working with Jack Abramoff, the lobbyist now under criminal and congressional investigation, paid $25,000 each to a conservative tax-exempt group to underwrite an event that got tribal leaders a private meeting with President Bush.

· --And The Washington Post reports that senators are asking for more information about the involvement of White House officials in pushing for a $30 billion air-tanker deal now considered the most significant military contracting abuses in several decades.

All this comes as a new Washington Post/ABC News poll shows a slew of sinking numbers for Bush, including a dramatic loss of support on his ace-in-the-hole issue, the war on terror. And the public has apparently concluded that the war in Iraq was not worth it and has not made the United States safer.

So it's perhaps no coincidence that Bush's patience with the press appeared to run out yesterday in the East Room.

Tradition necessitated a joint press availability with the visiting prime minister, but Bush nevertheless abruptly invoked the two-question-from-each-side rule that normally only applies to Oval Office photo ops.

And Bush was evidently in such a hurry to get out of there that he hastily called the conference to a close before Blair could respond to the final question.

I saw the presser. It looked to me as though Bush was sort of lording it over Blair, who looked uncomfortable and very unhappy. He didn't smile the whole time.

Another Fluffer for Big Business

Tobacco Escapes Huge Penalty
U.S. Seeks $10 Billion Instead of $130 Billion

By Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, June 8, 2005; Page A01

After eight months of courtroom argument, Justice Department lawyers abruptly upset a landmark civil racketeering case against the tobacco industry yesterday by asking for less than 8 percent of the expected penalty.

As he concluded closing arguments in the six-year-old lawsuit, Justice Department lawyer Stephen D. Brody shocked tobacco company representatives and anti-tobacco activists by announcing that the government will not seek the $130 billion that a government expert had testified was necessary to fund smoking-cessation programs. Instead, Brody said, the Justice Department will ask tobacco companies to pay $10 billion over five years to help millions of Americans quit smoking.

Before it was cut, the cessation program was the most significant financial penalty still available to the government as part of its litigation, which had been the largest civil racketeering and conspiracy case in U.S. history. The government contended that six tobacco companies engaged in a 50-year conspiracy to defraud and addict smokers and then conceal the dangers of cigarettes.

"We were very surprised," said Dan Webb, lawyer for Altria Group's Philip Morris USA and the coordinating attorney in the case. "They've gone down from $130 billion to $10 billion with absolutely no explanation. It's clear the government hasn't thought through what it's doing."

The Justice Department offered little explanation for the figure. Associate Attorney General Robert D. McCallum Jr. and members of the trial team declined to answer questions as the court session ended. In 2001, then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft tried to settle or shelve the government's racketeering case against the industry before a public outcry forced its revival.

"It feels like a political decision to take into consideration the tobacco companies' financial interest rather than health interests of 45 million addicted smokers," said William V. Corr, director of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. "The government proved its case, but the levels of funding are a shadow of the cessation treatment program that the government's own expert witness recommended."

Sources and government officials close to the case said the trial lawyers wanted to request $130 billion for smoking-cessation programs but were pressured by leaders in the attorney general's office, particularly McCallum, to make the cut. Arguments within the Justice Department continued behind the scenes through yesterday morning, according to the sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the controversy over the matter.

When the case began in 2004, the government sought to force the tobacco industry to pay $280 billion in allegedly ill-gotten profits. But in February, a federal appeals court ruled that the administration could not seek that penalty.

Michael Fiore, the government expert who recommended $130 billion for cessation programs, is a medical professor and director of a tobacco research center who chaired the subcommittee on tobacco cessation in the Department of Health and Human Services' Interagency Committee on Smoking and Health.

So, the Bushies give Big Tobacco a blow job worth a couple of hundred billion (with a b) dollars. Do you wonder where their campaign contributions went last year?

This is, frankly, an outrage. I am one of the people looking for one of those smoking cessation programs (trust me, I'm an expert quitter, I've done it so many times.) Any little benefit for the ordinary American consumer is always trumped by corporate interests.

You better believe will get single payer health care in this country when KPMG, 3M and Ford decide that its a better deal for them.

UPDATE: It ain't over.

Judge Queries U.S. Decision to Slash Penalty for Tobacco Firms

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: June 8, 2005

Filed at 5:32 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A federal judge on Wednesday questioned what was behind the government's decision to dramatically reduce the proposed size of a nationwide stop-smoking program, one of the penalties recommended in a racketeering suit against cigarette makers.

The government asked U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler on Tuesday to require the companies to fund a five-year, $10 billion program, a fraction of the 25-year, $130 billion program suggested by government witness Michael C. Fiore, a University of Wisconsin medical professor.

The Justice Department called the $10 billion program an ''initial request'' that could be expanded. But Kessler said Wednesday, ''There may be some additional influences being brought to bear'' on the government's decision.

Reps. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and Martin Meehan, D-Mass., sent a letter Wednesday to Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine asking him to assess whether ''improper political interference'' factored in the decision to ask for a smaller program.

''The Justice Department's approach to tobacco litigation should be based on the facts of the case and not political favors to the tobacco industry,'' the congressmen wrote. ''It is highly unusual for government prosecutors to abandon evidence-based testimony by their key witnesses at the last moment in a major trial.''

Associate Attorney General Robert McCallum said the government would address the stop-smoking program again Thursday, when closing arguments are scheduled to conclude. But, speaking to several reporters in the courtroom, he said he would not comment on what factors influenced the decision to ask for a smaller program.

The Justice Department claims tobacco companies conspired to deceive the public about the health risks of smoking, and it filed the suit under a civil racketeering law designed to prosecute mobsters.

As the companies started their closing arguments Wednesday, they said the government has not proven its case, and the companies have drastically changed their business practices since the alleged conspiracy began five decades ago.

''The enterprise that the government alleged is gone,'' said Brown & Williamson lawyer David Bernick.

In February, an appeals court stripped the government of its biggest stick against the defendants by denying the prosecutors' request to seek $280 billion in allegedly ill-gotten gains. The companies contend the racketeering law under which the case was filed in 1999 severely limits what penalties Kessler can impose if she finds liability.

I know Kessler and she's a bulldog. Stay tuned. Oh, and contemplate what Judge Janice Rogers Brown would do.

Still Hard to Do

Soldiers' divorce rates up sharply
Separation, stress erode marriages

By Gregg Zoroya
USA TODAY

The number of active-duty soldiers getting divorced has been rising sharply with deployments to Afghanistan and Iraq.

The trend is severest among officers. Last year, 3,325 Army officers' marriages ended in divorce — up 78% from 2003, the year of the Iraq invasion, and more than 31/2 times the number in 2000, before the Afghan operation, Army figures show. For enlisted personnel, the 7,152 divorces last year were 28% more than in 2003 and up 53% from 2000. During that time, the number of soldiers has changed little.

The Army has no comparable data for past wars.

The stress of combat, long separations and difficulty readjusting to family life are key reasons for the surge, Army officials say.

“Rising through the ranks, every subsequent job gets more difficult, more intense and more demanding,” says Col. Pamela Hart, an Army spokeswoman. “So the stressors are extreme in the officer corps, especially when we're at war, and officers have an overwhelming responsibility to take care of their soldiers as well as the soldiers' families. There's a lot of responsibility on the leaders' shoulders, which, I can assure you, takes away from the home life.

This was entirely predictable, but that doesn't make it any less of a tragedy. Multiple deployments, insufficient home leave, lack of support for family life by the Pentagon (Rummy wants to close base schools, leading to long commutes to classrooms of strangers) are the kinds of things that help tear families apart. Too many soldiers will be coming home to nothing, with little stake in society beyond child support or alimony. That's no one to help them adjust to non-deployed life and no way to create a cadre of professional soldiers.

Getting Sicker

Lethal bug is costing NHS £160m a year - and is spreading at a phenomenal rate
By Maxine Frith, Social Affairs Correspondent

08 June 2005

Hundreds of hospital wards are being closed and the NHS is losing £160m a year because of the lethal bug Clostridium difficile, affecting thousands of patients.

The Government is facing growing criticism from experts over its failure to tackle soaring rates of the C.difficile infection, which is linked to dirty wards and overuse of antibiotics.

The Independent revealed on Monday that the world-famous Stoke Mandeville Hospital in Buckinghamshire has been hit by a virulent new strain of the bug.

Twelve patients at the hospital have died and more than 300 have been infected by C.difficile, which causes severe diarrhoea and spreads quickly from person to person. But a leading microbiologist said the bug was "endemic" throughout the whole of the NHS.

Research by Professor Mark Wilcox at the University of Leeds has found that each case of C.difficile costs the NHS £4,000 in extended stays in hospital.

People over 65, who make up the majority of hospital patients, are particularly vulnerable to the bug. Infection with the bug can increase an elderly patient's stay by more than three weeks and close a ward for up to eight days.

With 43,000 cases in 2004, an annual increase of 23 per cent, the infection is costing the health service more than £160m a year.

We've got it here, too.

Bacterium linked to antibiotic use may be rising threat

BY TRACY WHEELER

Knight Ridder Newspapers

AKRON, Ohio - (KRT) - John Sauter and Jim Tall are either unrelated medical anomalies or harbingers of a scary bacterial outbreak to come.

In the past nine months, both men have come down with lingering infections from Clostridium difficile, or "C. diff," an odd bacterium that not only survives but also thrives on standard antibiotic use.

Typically, C. diff infections are found in elderly patients who are taking antibiotics during hospital or nursing home stays.

But neither Sauter, 49, nor Tall, 53, fits that profile.

Sauter, a former Akron resident who now lives in New Jersey, had been on an antibiotic to treat a sinus infection, but he hadn't set foot in a hospital or nursing home shortly before getting C. diff.

Tall, who lives in Canton, Ohio, had been visiting his aunt in a nursing home, but he had not been taking antibiotics.

Although such cases have been considered rare, federal health investigators are beginning to wonder whether a newer, nastier strain of C. diff - like the one causing an increasing number of deaths in Canada - is striking younger targets who may not have been exposed to antibiotics, hospitals or nursing homes.

"We are curious if the profile of patients who get C. difficile may be changing," said Dr. L. Clifford McDonald, a C. diff expert at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "We were wondering whether this new strain might be part of this. We don't know yet.

"This is something we're actively looking into."

C. diff has long been one of the most common hospital-acquired infections and a leading cause of antibiotic-associated diarrhea. But now a highly toxic strain of the bacterium is spreading through U.S. hospitals in nine states.

I haven't been studying the evolution of this particular bug, but it does seem to have something to do with excessive use of powerful antibiotics and with genetic mutation within the bug itself. C. diff is naturally present in the human gut, but kept under control by other intestinal flora. When those other flora succumb because of antibiotic us, C. diff steps and takes over.

From everything I'm reading these days, all I can say is that I hope to stay out of the hospital for the foreseeable future. They are not places for sick people.

Collapse

Poll Finds Dimmer View of Iraq War
52% Say U.S. Has Not Become Safer

By Dana Milbank and Claudia Deane
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, June 8, 2005; Page A01

For the first time since the war in Iraq began, more than half of the American public believes the fight there has not made the United States safer, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

While the focus in Washington has shifted from the Iraq conflict to Social Security and other domestic matters, the survey found that Americans continue to rank Iraq second only to the economy in importance -- and that many are losing patience with the enterprise.

Nearly three-quarters of Americans say the number of casualties in Iraq is unacceptable, while two-thirds say the U.S. military there is bogged down and nearly six in 10 say the war was not worth fighting -- in all three cases matching or exceeding the highest levels of pessimism yet recorded. More than four in 10 believe the U.S. presence in Iraq is becoming analogous to the experience in Vietnam.

Perhaps most ominous for President Bush, 52 percent said war in Iraq has not contributed to the long-term security of the United States, while 47 percent said it has. It was the first time a majority of Americans disagreed with the central notion Bush has offered to build support for war: that the fight there will make Americans safer from terrorists at home. In late 2003, 62 percent thought the Iraq war aided U.S. security, and three months ago 52 percent thought so.

Overall, more than half -- 52 percent -- disapprove of how Bush is handling his job, the highest of his presidency. A somewhat larger majority -- 56 percent -- disapproved of Republicans in Congress, and an identical proportion disapproved of Democrats.

There were signs, however, that Bush and Republicans in Congress were receiving more of the blame for the recent standoffs over such issues as Bush's judicial nominees and Social Security. Six in 10 respondents said Bush and GOP leaders are not making good progress on the nation's problems; of those, 67 percent blamed the president and Republicans while 13 percent blamed congressional Democrats. For the first time, a majority, 55 percent, also said Bush has done more to divide the country than to unite it.

The surge in violence in Iraq since the new government took control -- 80 U.S. troops and more than 700 Iraqis died in May alone amid a rash of bombings -- has been accompanied by rising gloom about the overall fight against terrorists. By 50 percent to 49 percent, Americans approved of the way Bush is handling the campaign against terrorism, down from 56 percent approval in April, equaling the lowest rating he has earned on the issue that has consistently been his core strength with the public.

It is long past time for Americans to wake up and smell the cordite. The next thing for us to do is to demand a solution. Methinks getting out sooner rather than later makes case for "plan meets need," as we used to call it in debate.

Colliding Worldviews

Liberals Rethinking Senate Filibuster Deal

By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, June 8, 2005; Page A04

Democrats generally cheered, and Republicans groused, when a bipartisan group of senators crafted a compromise on judicial nominations last month. But with the Senate now confirming several conservative nominees whom Democrats had blocked for years, some liberals are questioning the wisdom of the deal and fretting about what comes next.

"Our problem with the compromise is the price that was paid," Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) said yesterday. She and other Congressional Black Caucus members plan to march into the Senate today to protest the impending confirmation of Janice Rogers Brown.

Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), center, and other Congressional Black Caucus members plan to protest an impending judicial confirmation.

President Bush nominated Brown, an African American on the California Supreme Court, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, second in prestige and importance only to the Supreme Court. She has expressed her vividly conservative philosophies in speeches and written opinions that dismay liberals. Brown's record "shows a deep hostility to civil rights, to workers' rights, to consumer protection and to a wide variety of governmental actions in many other areas," Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) said in the first of two floor speeches opposing her nomination yesterday.
....
Several conservative commentators described the "Gang of 14" deal as a setback for Frist (R-Tenn.). Frist reinforced that notion with speeches describing his disappointment that two of the renominated judges -- William G. Myers III of Idaho and Henry W. Saad of Michigan -- appeared unlikely to be confirmed. But others say several sharply conservative judges are now being seated, and it is far from clear that the "extraordinary circumstances" clause will enable Democrats to block future conservative nominees to the Supreme Court or elsewhere.

"It looks like in some ways Frist is seizing the initiative," said Carl W. Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond. Moreover, he said, liberals may be deluded in thinking the bipartisan deal will thwart another contentious nominee -- Brett M. Kavanaugh, the White House staff secretary -- who is not named in the two-page agreement. Two years ago, Bush nominated Kavanaugh, who helped independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr pursue the Monica S. Lewinsky case, to the D.C. Circuit appeals court.

"I think it's wishful thinking by the Democrats that he won't move forward," Tobias said. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) said of Kavanaugh in an interview yesterday, "I intend to push him."

Yesterday, the Senate devoted itself entirely to Brown. Frist called her "a superb judge" who applies the law "without bias, without favor, with an even hand." Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), one of the 14 negotiators, called Brown "an extremely talented and qualified judge" who will "advance the cause of conservative judicial philosophy."

But Democrats recited a litany of Brown's controversial statements, including several from a 2000 speech titled "Fifty Ways to Lose Your Freedom." She said senior citizens "blithely cannibalize their grandchildren because they have a right to get as much 'free' stuff as the political system will permit them to extract." Elsewhere, Brown has said: "Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates. . . . When government advances . . . freedom is imperiled, civilization itself [is] jeopardized."

Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) told reporters that Brown is "one of the most extreme nominees that has ever come before the United States Senate in the 32 years I've been a senator."

Others warned that last month's compromise could be threatened soon. The pact permits the seven Democratic signers to filibuster Myers -- whom environmentalists strongly oppose -- without triggering support for a filibuster ban by the seven GOP signers. But Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) said that if Myers is filibustered, "the 14 are going to be in a real quandary, because they know how good he is."

Nan Aron, head of the liberal Alliance for Justice, said the accord reached by the 14 senators "is very mixed. Like all compromises, it had some really good and some really bad. . . . It was a bright day for the Senate and a dark day for the judiciary."

I had the chance to hear Nan Aron speak on this subject last week. Her summation, that this was a dark day for the judiciary, pretty much sums up my read of the situation. I would have been much happier if the Dems hadn't given these wingjobs a pass and made the Repubs have to fight it out on every nominee to beat the filibuster. Frist wouldn't have made this deal if he was sure he had the votes. I would have sweated him on every one of them.

I've been listening to the Senate debates on C-Span. It seems to me that the Repubs just make up their own set of facts.

Speaking out

Arms Fiascoes Lead to Alarm Inside Pentagon

By TIM WEINER
Published: June 8, 2005

Nine years ago, the Navy set out to build a new guided missile for its 21st-century ships. Fiascoes followed. In a test firing, the missile melted its on-board guidance system. "Incredibly," an Army review said, "the Navy ruled the test a success." Skip to next paragraph

Recently, the Navy rewrote the contract and put out another one, with little to show for the money it already spent. The bill has come to almost $400 million, five times the original budget.

Such stories may seem old hat. But after years of failing to control cost overruns, the most powerful officials at the Pentagon are becoming increasingly alarmed that the machinery for building weapons is breaking down under its own weight.

"Something's wrong with the system," Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld recently told Congress.

The Pentagon has more than 80 major new weapons systems under development, which is "a lot more programs than we can afford," a senior Air Force official, Blaise J. Durante, said. Their combined cost, already $300 billion over budget, is $1.47 trillion and climbing.

In the civilian world, next-generation technologies, like cellphones and computers, rarely cost much more than their predecessors. But the Pentagon's new planes and ships are costing three, four and five times as much as the weapons they will replace. As prices soar, the number of new weapons that the American military can afford shrinks, even with the biggest budget in decades.

"We're No. 1 in the world in military capabilities," said David M. Walker, who runs the Government Accountability Office, the budget overseer for Congress. "But on the business side, the Defense Department gets a D - giving them the benefit of the doubt. If they were a business, they wouldn't be in business."

For as long as I've been aware of such things, the Pentagon has always been a sink for corruption, waste, fraud and abuse, but the scale seems to have expanded by several orders of magnitude under Rummy. If it were a business, it would have gone out of business years ago.

If I were smart, I'd be going into the defense contracting business. It doesn't appear that either competence or results are needed.

As I said, the base of w/f/a isn't new, but when you get GAO officials speaking on the record, something new is going on.

No Let Up

No sign that the "spike" of violence in Iraq is abating anytime soon. Yesterday's death toll topped 33, from around the country.

The one-day death toll was the heaviest since the month of May, during which almost 700 Iraqis lost their lives.

The quoted AP story is as fine a round up as any.

The Crash

firedoglake speaks truth:

The only thing that is going to bring about regime change is if people fear that America No More Number One, and that the bunch in charge is leading them down the path of economic calamity. It bounced both Carter and Bush I out of office. When people begin to believe that their prosperity is in jeopardy, then and only then are they going to vote to change the course of the country. In the mean time, bless John Conyers for making the Sith lords take even a moment away from charting our destruction to deal with him, 'cos it's a pure labor of love.

Their vision for the economy was Iraq. Well that didn't fucking work, did it. Greenspan is trying to keep the housing bubble alive until the next bubble comes along -- and that was supposed to be a Wall Street boon from raping Social Security. Doesn't look like that's going to work, either. They have no next best plan. Their next best plan was the bankruptcy bill, which insures that when the shit does hit the fan that working class people will have no escape, and Corporate America can still get theirs.

When and if that message finally gets across in the public consciousness, nobody is going to give a rat's ass about activist judges or Girls Gone Wild or Gay Pride floats in the middle of the Easter Parade. Let's just hope it gets out there before the collapse of epic proportions arrives and there's no turning back.

My translation: it has to get really bad to catch the attention of the ADD voting public, and it looks like the economy will get really bad. This has always been a country addicted to mood swings. It won't be pretty, but change will come.

Chasm

The Bush Economy

Published: June 7, 2005

With all of the debate about taxes, the economy and domestic spending, it is hard to imagine anyone supporting the notion of taking money from programs like Medicaid and college-tuition assistance, increasing the tax burden of the vast majority of working Americans, sending the country into crushing debt - and giving the proceeds to people who are so fantastically rich that they don't know what to do with the money they already have. Yet that is just what is happening under the Bush administration. Forget the middle class and the upper-middle class. Even the merely wealthy are being left behind in the dust by the small slice of super-rich Americans.

In last Sunday's Times, David Cay Johnston reported that from 1980 to 2002, the latest year of available data, the share of total income earned by the top 0.1 percent of earners more than doubled, while the share earned by everyone else in the top 10 percent rose far less. The share of the bottom 90 percent declined.

President Bush did not create the income gap. But the unheralded effect of his tax policy is its unequal impact on the modestly well to do. By 2015, those making between $80,000 and $400,000 will pay as much as 13.9 percentage points more of their income in federal taxes than those making more than $400,000, assuming the tax cuts are made permanent. Below $80,000, most taxpayers will see their share of taxes rise slightly or stay the same.

Mr. Johnston's article quotes a prominent economist who argues that people care more about the chance to move from one income class to another (upward, of course) than about income distribution. But during the Bush years, the two main sources of class mobility - a good job and money for higher education - have increasingly failed to materialize for those who most need them. Last week's jobs report from the Labor Department confirmed that a strong labor market recovery has not taken hold. Wages for most working people failed even to outpace inflation in the past year.

That might be more bearable if things were rough all over. But the share of economic growth that is going toward corporate profits, which flow to stockholders and bondholders who are concentrated at the top of the income scale, is at historic highs.

I aspire to the middle class, but doubt that I'll ever get there.

Here Comes the Judge

The Senate scheduled a cloture vote on the nomination of Janice Rogers Brown for 5 PM tomorrow. I assume Frist has the votes or it wouldn't have been scheduled. I find her frankly frightening. Have you called your senators yet?

Earthjustice says:

"California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown is one of the worst choices imaginable to serve in a lifetime seat on the second-most important court in America, according to according to leaders from the Coalition for a Fair and Independent Judiciary. On Wednesday, the Senate is scheduled to vote on the confirmation of Justice Brown to a lifetime seat on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, which serves as the court of last resort for the vast majority of cases that impact our nation’s most fundamental rights, including environmental protections and the rights of workers, women, minorities, seniors, and persons with disabilities.

"Except for the handful of cases that the Supreme Court agrees to review, the DC Circuit typically has the final say on whether national health, safety, environmental, civil rights, workers’ rights and women’s rights protections will stand or fall. As a result, the DC Circuit’s importance to the future of these protections cannot be overstated. Nominees for the DC Circuit should be given the same careful scrutiny that is expected of Supreme Court nominations. "

Here is a boatload of editorials and commentary showing why she is such a bad choice. Send it to your senators.

New Tech

EDITORIAL: Which One's the Eight-Track?

Remember the VHS/Betamax war? It wasn't pretty. Hollywood and consumer electronics firms failed to agree on a home video recording system standard, so two competing and incompatible formats emerged. Consumers had to bet on which would survive, with the losers — Betamax buyers — being stuck with tapes that could never be played in newer machines. And now the whole mess appears to be happening again.

Powerful camps led by Sony Corp. on one side and Toshiba Corp. on the other are pushing incompatible versions of next-generation DVD systems that will include discs capable of holding high-definition movies. Rather than putting the interests of consumers first by agreeing on a single standard, Sony and Toshiba are focusing on their own bottom-line interests.

Sony Corp.'s Blu-Ray DVD is supported by Pioneer, Matsushita's Panasonic, Samsung, Apple and others. Toshiba's HD DVD counts NEC and Sanyo as supporters. Hollywood studios are split, some forging alliances with Sony and some with Toshiba. Big money is at risk, so both camps have dug in deep and are lobbying hard.

Reason still might win out. In April, a Japanese newspaper reported that Sony and Toshiba were in closed-door meetings to discuss a compromise. But absent an immediate truce, the first generation of new machines will move into the market in time for the holiday season, leaving early adapters to place their bets on one technology or the other.

A years-long war makes no sense for the industry or consumers. Movie studios already have digital pirates to worry about. Now they risk alienating customers by joining in a format war.

The uncertainty will also dampen interest in the new products, hurting electronics makers and retailers.

Our advice if a truce isn't quickly forthcoming? Don't buy anything at all until one side waves a white flag.

I was in the market for a DVD player. Sounds like I need to wait. Will those of you who are savvier about this kind of stuff let me know when it is safe to go back in the water?

The People's Business

Lots of Work Ahead for a Conflicted Congress
By LAWRENCE M. O'ROURKE
McClatchy Newspapers
Jun 7, 2005, 03:38

Stalled in confirmation fights and torn by ethics battles, Congress returns to work Tuesday on a full plate of significant legislation, including energy policy and highway construction, as leaders promise an end to the stalemate of recent weeks.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., is predicting the summer months will mark a period of achievement for the majority Republicans. But GOP leaders are under pressure to act quickly if they are to carry bragging rights into an election year in which the prevailing party traditionally loses seats.

"Voters are dissatisfied by Congress and fed up by the partisan bickering," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.

Despite the fact that Republicans control the White House and both chambers on Capitol Hill, there's little legislation so far to distinguish this congress.

"President Bush needs to get tough, maybe even a little mean, with Congress if it is to accomplish much," said Steve Hess, a congressional analyst with the Brookings Institution. "Time's running out. There's an awful lot of discontent, a feeling that Congress is identified with inaction and scandal."

Political analysts say Republicans could be the victims of their overselling at the launch of this session of Congress. Initially, Republican leaders promised to overhaul Social Security, but that has staggered under the weight of the president's initiative to divert payroll taxes into private accounts.

Then the new administration and Congress promised to put some steam behind a booming economy. But the jury is still out on whether her things are getting better, and every time millions of Americans go to the gasoline pump, they're hit by meters tabbing at more than $2 a gallon.

"We're going very fast into the election cycle that will pick the Congress for the final two years of the president's term," said Hess. "Americans know that Republicans have been in charge. Democrats are getting better in showing their opposition. Republicans know they have to change this around in a hurry."

Democrats are promoting the idea that the Republican government has been ineffective.

"We've accomplished so little of what we were sent here for, and time is running out," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "This whole legislative year, we have yet to spend a single minute debating health care, debating education, debating the environment, debating that things that people in America feel important."

Republicans counter that the slow pace on Capitol Hill is the fault of Senate Democrats.

House Republican Conference Chairman Deborah Pryce, R-Ohio, said that the House GOP pushed through legislation "with momentum and promise only to see it sputter and stall in the Senate."

Even with partisan crossfire, the two months between the Memorial Day recess and the start of the August summer recess leave an opening for a record that Congress can present to the voters. The Senate's first priority this week will be to debate and vote on Bush's nomination of several judges, starting with Janice Rogers Brown of California to serve on the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals, and of John Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

The judges, and even the controversial Bolton, could be confirmed by the weekend, especially with many senators trying to preserve a truce on judicial nominees and the filibuster under a deal cut last month.

While the nominations and enactment of long-delayed energy policy and highway building legislation will be the nuts and bolts of the summer, many are focusing on what might happen on other hot button topics. Among them:

_President Bush's proposal to overhaul Social Security through a new system of voluntary private accounts appears to be stuck, with House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas, R-Calif., trying for a rescue with a big package that includes major changes in tax policy to encourage saving.

_ The possible nomination of a Supreme Court chief justice to succeed the ailing William Rehnquist. While the chief has not announced retirement plans, the expectation is for a vacancy to be filled by the time the high court opens its new session in October.

_ An avalanche of ethics battles in the House, starting with a probe into Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas. The focus may well start on DeLay's foreign travel and other perks paid for by private interests. But the aggressive finger-pointing will likely reveal a widespread pattern with the potential to drag in other key lawmakers, Republicans and Democrats alike.

Um, Sen. Reid, most Americans don't understand that Senate "debate" is what the body was designed to do. They hear it as "obstruction." You are going to have to find a better way to talk about what you do if you want to win elections. You congressional types forget that most voters are too damn busy trying to get through each day to pay much attention to what you do.

4th Gen Warfare

Critics: Pentagon in blinders
Long before 9/11, the military was warned about low-tech warfare, but it didn't listen

By Stephen J. Hedges
Washington Bureau

June 6, 2005

WASHINGTON -- Nearly 16 years ago, a group of four military officers and a civilian predicted the rise of terrorism and anti-American insurgencies with chilling accuracy.

The group said U.S. military technology was so advanced that foreign forces would be unlikely to challenge it directly, and it forecast that future foes would be non-state insurgents and terrorists whose weapons would be suicide car bombs, not precision-guided weapons.

"Today, the United States is spending $500 million apiece for stealth bombers," the group wrote in a 1989 article that appeared in a professional military journal. "A terrorist stealth bomber is a car with a bomb in the trunk--a car that looks like every other car."

The five men dubbed their theory "Fourth Generation Warfare" and warned that the U.S. military had to adapt. In the years since, the original group of officers, joined by a growing number of officers and scholars within the military, has pressed Pentagon leaders to acknowledge this emerging threat.

But rather than adopting a new strategy, the generals and civilian leaders in the Defense Department have continued to support conventional, high-intensity conflict and the expensive weapons that go with it. That is happening, critics say, despite lethal insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"They don't understand this kind of warfare," said Greg Wilcox, a retired Army lieutenant colonel, Vietnam veteran and critic of Pentagon policies. "They want to return to war as they envision it. That's not going to happen."

Wilcox is just one of a number of maverick officers, active and retired, who have been agitating for change. Others include Marine Col. T.X. Hammes, whose recent book on the subject is required reading in some units, as well as Marine Col. G.I. Wilson, currently serving in Iraq, and H. John Poole, a retired Marine who has written extensively on insurgencies.

Together they make up the public face of a much larger debate within the U.S. military over whether the Defense Department is doing enough to train troops to fight insurgents.

It is a debate with enormous consequences. Though most of the more than 1,350 American combat deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan have been caused by low-tech insurgent weaponry such as roadside bombs, the Army plans to spend more than $120 billion in the next decade on a future combat system of digitally linked vehicles, weapons and unmanned aircraft. It is based largely on conventional warfare theory.

The Army also is reorganizing its 10 divisions into 43 more flexible, 5,000-soldier brigades that can be plunked down in a war zone. But the weapons and training those forces receive still will lean heavily toward the traditional view of conflict, with heavy tanks, helicopters, close air support and terrain-holding troops.

Soldiers take initiative

The mavericks' Fourth Generation Warfare theory is about as far as one can get from current Pentagon doctrine. But many of the captains, corporals and privates fighting today have adopted the mavericks' theories and tactics.

"So much of it was validated that it's theoretically right on the money," said Jim Roussell, a chief warrant officer in the Marine Reserves who focuses on gang crime in Chicago as a sergeant in the city's Police Department. He recently returned from Iraq after leading a Marine unit against insurgents.

Army and Marine Corps officials in Washington declined to answer questions on the changes suggested by the mavericks.

But in November, the Army issued a revised field manual on fighting insurgencies that had not been updated in more than a decade. It has received a mixed reception.

"We really have a lot of institutional friction right now," said Lt. Col. Jan Horvath, the Army manual's primary author. "There are a number of junior officers who understand this." Senior officers, Horvath said, have been less accepting.

Still, some units are adapting. The Army's 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, for instance, last month began its second tour of Iraq after months of innovative training, including a requirement that all officers and soldiers receive basic Arabic language and culture training.

"It's working," said Col. H.R. McMaster, the regiment's commander, who has lectured at U.S. Military Academy in West Point, N.Y., and written a book about the failures of the Vietnam War. "It's a hard problem. Nothing is easy over here. But I'm telling you we're getting after it, we're pursuing the enemy, we are totally on the offensive right now.

Um, no. It's not working and the military haven't yet learned what John Boyd and T.X. Hammes taught in their Fourth Generation warfare books. Far from it, Rummy and the DoD remain a generation behind the times.

If it quacks like a duck...

U.S. to Shun Hamas Members, Even if Democratically Elected

By STEVEN R. WEISMAN
Published: June 7, 2005

The Bush administration, rebuffing the suggestions of some European officials, will continue to refuse to have contact with the militant group Hamas and its leaders even if some of those leaders win elections in Palestinian areas, a senior administration official said Monday.

The official said that a ban on contacts with Hamas was required because the group was listed by the United States as a terrorist organization, and that the United States would not follow a practice of some European countries of engaging with the group's political wing even if it also had an armed wing carrying out attacks on civilians.

"The president has said that Hamas is on the terrorism list, and it's there for a reason," said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity. "We don't recognize that you have changed your behavior just because a group is running candidates as well as suicide bombers."

The official's comments were significant in light of Mr. Bush's outspoken support for democracy in the Middle East, particularly in Palestinian areas, where Hamas has considerable political strength and is challenging the leadership of Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian leader.

Hamas won several recent local elections in the West Bank and Gaza, and it is expected to make a strong showing against Mr. Abbas's faction, Fatah, in coming parliamentary elections. Mr. Abbas announced Sunday that he would postpone those elections, which had been scheduled for July 17, prompting protests by Hamas.

Some in the Bush administration had expressed concern in private about the possibility of Hamas's winning the parliamentary elections, especially if such a victory meant that the United States and Israel might have to engage with Hamas officials in carrying out the planned disengagement of Israeli forces and settlers from Gaza, starting in August.

I can see someone trying to explain this administration's foreign policy in a nutshell:

We support democracies through out the world, except when they chose people we don't like or reach conclusions we disagree with. Then, we threaten to remove the governments through economic or military coersion.

We also support horrific dictators here and here and here so long as they are our allies for our short term goals. Sure, we'd love for them to see the light, but if they don't, that's ok. We have a lot of foreign aid to send them.

And then there are some places where the people there are very nice in person but don't always play nice with the other kids in the neighborhood, but they looked us in the eye and crossed their heart and promised to be better next time so we'll believe them.

I'm going Slightly Mad

Most Will Be Mentally Ill at Some Point, Study Says

By BENEDICT CAREY
Published: June 7, 2005

More than half of Americans will develop a mental illness at some point in their lives, often beginning in childhood or adolescence, researchers have found in a survey that experts say will have wide-ranging implications for the practice of psychiatry.

The survey is the most comprehensive in a series of censuslike mental health studies undertaken by the government. The findings of those studies are frequently cited by researchers, advocacy groups, policy makers and drug manufacturers to emphasize the importance of diagnosing and treating mental illness.

The earlier, less comprehensive surveys, which were published in 1984 and 1994 and which also found a high prevalence of mental illness, came under attack on the ground that they defined mental illness too broadly. Now, experts say, the new findings are sure to renew debate about whether mental illness can be reliably distinguished from garden-variety emotional struggles that are part of any life.

Dr. Thomas Insel, director of the National Institute of Mental Health, the primary sponsor of the study, said in a conference call with reporters, "The key point to remember is that mental disorders are highly prevalent and chronic."

The study, Dr. Insel added, "demonstrates clearly that these really are the chronic disorders of young people in this country."

On the other side are psychiatrists who say they believe that the estimates are inflated. "Fifty percent of Americans mentally impaired - are you kidding me?" said Dr. Paul McHugh, a professor of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University.

While the new survey was carefully done, Dr. McHugh said, "the problem is that the diagnostic manual we are using in psychiatry is like a field guide and it just keeps expanding and expanding."

"Pretty soon," he said, "we'll have a syndrome for short, fat Irish guys with a Boston accent, and I'll be mentally ill."

Dr. Ronald C. Kessler, a professor of health care policy at Harvard Medical School, was the lead author of the survey, and was joined by a team of researchers from other universities and from the National Institute of Mental Health. Dr. Kessler said the rates of illness found should not be surprising.

"If I told you that 99 percent of Americans have had a physical illness, you wouldn't blink an eye," he said in an interview. "The fact is that there is a very wide range included here, with the equivalent of many psychiatric hangnails. We don't want to demonize those, but we don't want to trivialize them, either, because we know in many cases they lead to serious problems later on."

Hey, we really are as crazy as the voices in our head tell us we are! Thank goodness that there are all sort of drugs out there to boost our self esteem.

Seriously though, it seems like mental illnesses are almost like learning disabilities in the schools. I know that I've probably been clinically depressed multiple times during my lifetime... but no one has ever diagnosed me with that per se. Most of the time it's due to some chemical imbalance with the food that I had eaten, but did I need any drugs? Nope, just someone to give me a good kick in the rear.

Now, I'm not disregarding all of the real problems that are out there because there are a lot of them, but don't you think most of us with the "hangnail" type of problems should stop trying to come up with a diagnosis for them instead of dealing with them head on? And maybe if this many people are having problems, we as a nation should take a long hard look at what is going on in our society.

Rolling thunder

The summer storms have moved into DC, and that means I'll be losing power on a regular basis. I was out for several hours last night without a cloud in the sky. Resetting all the digital equipment was SO fun.

Guest posters, move in.

What's At Stake

The Mugging of the American Dream

By Bill Moyers, AlterNet. Posted June 6, 2005.

Washington is a divided city -- not between north and south as in Lincoln's time, but between those who can buy all the government they want and those who can't even afford a seat in the bleachers.

Editor's Note: The following is the prepared text of the speech Bill Moyers gave June 3 at the Take Back America conference in Washington, D.C. The transcript of the speech as delivered can be found at ourfuture.org.

A profound transformation is occurring in America and those responsible for it don't want you to connect the dots. We are experiencing what has been described as a "fanatical drive to dismantle the political institutions, the legal and statutory canons, and the intellectual and cultural frameworks that have shaped public responsibility for social harms arising from the excesses of private power." From public land to water and other natural resources, from media with their broadcast and digital spectrums to scientific discoveries and medical breakthroughs, a broad range of America's public resources is being shifted to the control of elites and the benefit of the privileged. It all seems so clear now that we wonder how we could have ignored the warning signs at the time. Back in the early l970s President Nixon's Attorney General, John Mitchell, predicted that "this country is going to go so far to the right that you won't recognize it." A wealthy right-winger of the time, William Simon, President Nixon's Secretary of the Treasury, wrote a polemic declaring that "funds generated by business...must rush by the multimillions" to conservative causes. Said Business Week, bluntly: "Some people will obviously have to do with less...It will be a bitter pill for many Americans to swallow the idea of doing with less so that big business can have more."

We've seen the strategy play out for years now: to cut workforces and wages, scour the globe in search of cheap labor, trash the social contract and the safety net meant to protect people from hardships beyond their control, make it hard for ordinary citizens to gain redress for the malfeasance and malpractice of corporations, and diminish the ability of government to check and balance "the animal spirits" of economic warfare where the winner takes all. Streams of money flowed into think tanks to shape the agenda, media to promote it, and a political machine to achieve it. What has happened to working Americans is not the result of Adam Smith's benign and invisible hand but the direct consequence of corporate money, ideological propaganda, a partisan political religion, and a string of political decisions favoring the interests of wealthy elites who bought the political system right out from under us.

It's an old story in America. We shouldn't be surprised by it any more. Hold up a mirror to this moment and you will see reflected back to you the first Gilded Age in the last part of the l9th century. Then, as now, the great captains of industry and finance could say, with Frederick Townsend Martin, "We are rich. We own America. We got it, God knows how, but we intend to keep it."

They were deadly serious. Go for the evidence to such magisterial studies of American history as Growth of the American Republic ( Morison, Commager, and Leuchtenberg), and you'll read how they did it: They gained control of newspapers and magazines. They subsidized candidates. They bought legislation and even judicial decisions. To justify their greed and power they drew on history, law, economics, and religion to concoct a philosophy that would come to be known as Social Darwinism - "backed up by the quasi religious principle that the acquisition of wealth was a mark of divine favor." One of their favorite apologists, Professor William Graham Sumner of Yale, said: "If we do not like the survival of the fittest, we have only one possible alternative, and that is the survival of the unfittest. The former is the law of civilization; the latter is the law of anti-civilization.

I'm not making this up. It's right there in the record. The historians tell us that a boundless continent lay open and ready for their exploitation and "all the bounties of nature were allowed to fall into the hands of strong men and powerful corporations." Clever lawyers came up with new devices for the legal aggrandizement of private fortunes (shades of today's Federalist Society!) No labor laws or workingmen's compensation nets interfered with their profits (shades of DeLay's "Petri dish of capitalism! ") No public opinion penetrated the walls of their conceit (shades of "The Great Republican Noise Machine.")

They're back, my friends. They're back in full force and their goal is to take America back - to their private Garden of Eden in that first Gilded Age when "the strong take what they wanted and the weak suffer what they must." Look no further than today's news: William Donaldson, who made a decent stab at enforcing post-Enron reform on Wall Street, is out as Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission; according to USA Today, the President's big donors - the captains of finance - cashed in their IOUs and came away from the White House with his head on a platter. In his place: A rightwing congressman who takes a dim view of shareholder suits and favors eliminating the estate tax, the dividend tax, the - well, there's no tax on wealth he doesn't want to eliminate. Once again the chicken coop is sold to the fox.

Back in the first Gilded Age it was the progressives who took them on, throwing themselves at the juggernaut to try and keep it from rolling over the last vestiges of democracy. They lost the first rounds and only because they kept fighting for many long years did in time America begin to balance the power of concentrated wealth with the claims and needs of ordinary people. Nowadays it's you who stand between that regenerated juggernaut and those families in Milwaukee, those folks in Tamaqua, and the millions like them around the country. You must be like the Irishman coming upon a street brawl who yells in a loud voice: "Is this a private fight, or can anyone get in it?" Not waiting, he wades in.

Wade in! Go home and tell the truth to your neighbors and fight the corruption of the system. But it's not enough just to say how bad the others are. You owe your opponents the compliment of a good argument. Come up with fresh ideas to make capitalism work for all. Ask entrepreneurs to join you - they know how to make things happen. Show us a new vision of globalization with a conscience. Stand up for working people and people in the middle and people who can't stand on their own. Be not cowed, intimidated, or frightened - you may be on the losing side of the moment, as the early progressives were, but you're on the winning side of history. And have some fun when you fight - Americans are more likely to join the party that enjoys a party . Come to think of it, go out and argue that working people should have more time off from the endless hours of tedious work that devours the soul and the long commutes that devastate families and communities.

Lower Education

Financial Aid Rules for College Change, and Families Pay More
By GREG WINTER

No matter how she parses it, Roberta Proctor cannot make sense of her son's college bill. Her income and her assets have not changed. If anything, she says, her family's finances have deteriorated somewhat.

So, she wonders, how could she possibly owe an extra $6,000 for the coming school year, when tuition has not increased anywhere near that amount?

But she does. Like the Proctors, Californians whose son just finished his freshman year at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, thousands of American families might find it harder to qualify for financial aid this year and might be asked to contribute more money toward the cost of college because of changes to a complicated federal formula they barely know about, much less understand.

Taken together, these changes, some based on overly optimistic predictions of inflation, have required families to count a greater share of their incomes and assets toward college expenses before becoming eligible for financial aid. As a consequence, tens of thousands of low-income students will no longer be eligible for federal grants; middle-class families are digging deeper into their savings; and some colleges are putting up their own money to make up the difference.

"This is not what we intended," said Joe Paul Case, the financial aid director at Amherst College, in Massachusetts, who helped develop the formula that the government now uses for the bulk of the nation's students. "There is certainly more duress than we had in mind."

The New York Times did an analysis of the formula on middle-class incomes in more than a dozen states to see whether families would have to spend a greater part of their income and assets before qualifying for financial aid than they did five years ago. Though the effects of the formula changes vary from state to state, The Times found that families with the same earnings and assets as in 2000 would typically have to pay an extra $1,749 before clearing the eligibility bar for financial aid in 2005, after adjusting for inflation.

Though the formula will change in the future, sometimes to a family's advantage, the impact on campuses now is obvious, many university officials say, and often cuts across class lines. The University of California, Berkeley, for example, says that 1,000 of its middle- to upper-middle-class students will probably lose eligibility for federal subsidies on their student loans in the coming year, a change that typically means higher debts because of accrued interest. On the other side of the economic spectrum, Northeastern University, in Boston, says that 300 of its low-income students will not receive the federal grants they would have been eligible for last year.

"For some of those students, it's the difference between enrolling and not enrolling," said Seamus Harreys, dean of student financial services at Northeastern. "We're trying to figure how to get them through to graduation."

The Republicans want to keep you uneducated and poor. It's in the best interests of the oligarchs.

It Begins

SCIENCE Notebook

Post
Monday, June 6, 2005; A07

Siberian Lakes Disappearing

Lakes in northern Siberia are shrinking and disappearing at a steady rate as the Arctic climate warms and permafrost thaws, and none of the lakes have been refilling.

Using satellite photos of north-central Siberia taken from 1972 to 1998, researchers found that the number of large lakes in a 220,000-square-mile region had declined by 1,170, or more than 11 percent. Each of the lakes studied was larger than 100 acres.

During the 26-year period, total lake coverage in that area decreased by more than 6 percent, even though precipitation increased slightly.

Writing in Friday's issue of the journal Science, the researchers concluded that "the ultimate effect of continued climate warming on high-latitude, permafrost-controlled lakes and wetlands may well be their widespread disappearance." Of the almost 11,000 Siberian lakes that shrank significantly, the researchers found, 125 lakes disappeared entirely and were refilled with vegetation.

Permafrost is ground ice that generally does not melt throughout the year. There are, however, gradations of permafrost, ranging from conditions where the soil remains ice cold from the surface on down all the time, to situations where some surface permafrost melts and where nearby areas experience thawing during warm spells.

The researchers said that although the Siberian region they studied saw an overall and substantial decline in the number of lakes, the more northern reaches of "continuous" permafrost experienced an increase. The reason, the researchers hypothesized, is that as permafrost warms, it slumps and collapses -- creating depressions (thermokarst) where water collects as lakes. But if the warming continues, they said, the thermokarst in the northern reaches will go through the same shrinking process now seen at the more southern lakes and will gradually disappear.

But, but...Bush told us there is no global warming....

Lurking Threat

Grounding a Pandemic

By BARACK OBAMA and RICHARD LUGAR
Published: June 6, 2005

Washington — When we think of the major threats to our national security, the first to come to mind are nuclear proliferation, rogue states and global terrorism. But another kind of threat lurks beyond our shores, one from nature, not humans - an avian flu pandemic. An outbreak could cause millions of deaths, destabilize Southeast Asia (its likely place of origin), and threaten the security of governments around the world.

Earlier this year, Dr. Julie L. Gerberding, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, called the possibility of avian flu spreading from Southeast Asia "a very ominous situation for the globe." A killer flu could spread around the world in days, crippling economies in Southeast Asia and elsewhere. From a public health standpoint, Dr. Gerberding said, an avian flu outbreak is "the most important threat that we are facing right now."

International health experts say that two of the three conditions for an avian flu pandemic in Southeast Asia have already been met. First, a new strain of the virus, called A(H5N1), has emerged, and humans have little or no immunity to it. Second, this strain can jump between species. The only remaining obstacle is that A(H5N1) has not yet mutated into a form that is easily transmitted from human to human.

However, there have been some alarming developments. In recent months, the virus has been detected in mammals that have never previously been infected, including tigers, leopards and domestic cats. This spread suggests that the virus is mutating and could eventually emerge in a form that is readily transmittable among humans, leading to a full-blown pandemic. In fact, according to government officials, a few cases of human-to-human spread of A(H5N1) have already occurred.
....
It is essential for the international community, led by the United States, to take decisive action to prevent a pandemic.

So what should we do? Recently, the World Health Organization called for more money and attention to be devoted to effective preventive action, appealing for $100 million.

Congress responded promptly. A bipartisan group of senators obtained $25 million for prevention efforts (a quarter of the request, the traditional contribution of the United States), allowing the C.D.C., the Agency for International Development, the Health and Human Services Department and other agencies to improve their ability to act.

In addition, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee unanimously approved legislation directing President Bush to form a senior-level task force to put in place an international strategy to deal with the avian flu and coordinate policy among our government agencies. We urge the Bush administration to form this task force immediately without waiting for legislation to be passed.

But these are only modest first steps. International health experts believe that Southeast Asia will be an epicenter of influenza for decades. We recommend that this administration work with Congress, public health officials, the pharmaceutical industry, foreign governments and international organizations to create a permanent framework for curtailing the spread of future infectious diseases.

Among the parts of that framework could be these:

Increasing international disease surveillance, response capacity and public education and coordination, especially in Southeast Asia.

Stockpiling enough antiviral doses to cover high-risk populations and essential workers.

Ensuring that, here at home, Health and Human Services and state governments put in place plans that address issues of surveillance, medical care, drug and vaccine distribution, communication, protection of the work force and maintenance of core public functions in case of a pandemic.

Accelerating research into avian flu vaccines and antiviral drugs.

Establishing incentives to encourage nations to report flu outbreaks quickly and fully.

So far, A(H5N1) has not been found in the United States. But in an age when you can board planes in Bangkok or Hong Kong and arrive in Chicago, Indianapolis or New York in hours, we must face the reality that these exotic killer diseases are not isolated health problems half a world away, but direct and immediate threats to security and prosperity here at home.

USAToday has an optimistic article today:

Quick action may head off global epidemic

By Paul Wiseman, USA TODAY

BANGKOK — After poring over old medical records, studying census data and cranking out mathematical models, scientists and health officials are beginning to believe they have a chance to stop a bird flu pandemic before it kills millions of people worldwide.

The key: detecting an outbreak early and rushing powerful antiviral drugs to the source to throttle a pandemic at birth before it can bust out of Southeast Asia, carrying sickness and death around the globe. "It is the first time in the history of mankind that anyone has thought about keeping a worldwide pandemic at bay," says William Aldis, the top World Health Organization (WHO) official in Thailand.

But the window of opportunity could close quickly, and the world is not yet prepared to take advantage of it, researchers say. Rich countries are stockpiling antiviral drugs, but there is little available in the impoverished backwaters of Southeast Asia where an outbreak is likely to begin.

"The world is not dealing with this with sufficient attention," says Supamit Chunsuttiwat, disease control expert at the Thai Ministry of Public Health. "If we join hands, we might be able to stop the pandemic."

"We are not prepared," says Marc Lipsitch, an epidemiologist at the Harvard School of Public Health. "It is critical to scale up preparations on the home front, but equally urgent ... to prevent the start of a new pandemic in Asia."

We don't have the world stockpile of anti-virals yet that it would take to flood Asia and prevent the spread of Avian influenza and I'm not seeing the will on the part of the USG to do anything about it.

Accountability

Members of Sept. 11 Panel Press for Information on Terror Risk

By PHILIP SHENON
Published: June 6, 2005

WASHINGTON, June 5 - Members of the Sept. 11 commission, fearing that the Bush administration and Congress will never act on some of their recommendations, are joining together almost a year after completing their final report to press the White House for information showing whether the government has done enough to prevent another catastrophic terrorist attack, commission officials said.

The officials said the 10 commissioners, acting through a private group they founded last summer, will present a letter within days to Andrew H. Card Jr., President Bush's chief of staff, asking the White House to allow the group to gather detailed information from the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Pentagon, the State Department and other agencies about the government's recent performance in dealing with terrorist threats.

Commissioners say they want the information to prepare for a series of public hearings scheduled to begin here on Monday and to draft a privately financed report that will evaluate the government's counterterrorism policies in the wake of the commission's final report last July.

The moves, which may not be welcome at the White House or among Congressional leaders, represent an unusual effort by members of a high-profile federal commission to retain their political viability and to lobby for their recommendations long after their official investigation came to an end.

"We're going to ask a lot of questions," said Thomas H. Kean, who was chairman of the Sept. 11 commission and is now a board member of the 9/11 Public Discourse Project, a private educational and lobbying group. "There are a lot of our recommendations that have not been implemented."

Mr. Kean said that with terrorist groups threatening new attacks on American soil, "we don't have a lot of time left to act."

The 9/11 Public Discourse Project has scheduled eight public hearings on the government's counterterrorism efforts; the hearing on Monday will focus on the C.I.A. and the F.B.I., the targets of the sharpest criticism in the commission's final report last year.

Funny, you won't see anything about this on CNN.

Bush and the Repubs will act on the stuff that brings profits to their corporate minders, but anything which actually makes us safer isn't on the table. It's time to start thinking about impeachment for Bush, Cheney and Rummy.

The 911 people are out of their minds if they think they are going to get more information out of Bushco. If the Senate can't get it for Bolton, the former commissioners are going to be SOL.

Giving the Gov Another Pass

Via Nathan Newman:

It's a crummy headline. These folks have legitimate complaints, "grievance" is a formal procedure in labor law and these workers aren't organized.

Beyond the Bargains, Grievances
By STEVEN GREENHOUSE

Like many shopping strips in immigrant neighborhoods, Knickerbocker Avenue in Bushwick is overflowing with 99-cent stores, cuchifrito stands, sneaker shops - and egregious wage and hour violations.

At the Super Star 99 discount store at 353 Knickerbocker, employees say they work 63 hours a week for $260, which works out to $4.13 an hour, far below the state minimum wage of $6 an hour and the federal minimum of $5.15.

At the Nuevo Mexico restaurant at 276 Knickerbocker, Patricia Reyes, a 29-year-old waitress and cook, said she received just $165 a week, including tips, for 72 hours of work, which comes to $2.29 an hour.

And at Footco, a bustling sneaker shop at 431 Knickerbocker, workers said they earned $4.75 an hour working more than 50 hours a week.

For many workers in Bushwick, Brooklyn, the possibility of receiving the legally required time and a half for overtime, even when they work 80-hour weeks, seems as likely as winning the lottery.

"They always told us work faster, faster, and the money was really bad," said Deisi Cortes, who worked as a stocker at Super Star 99 until April when she was fired, she said, for being pregnant. "We'd ask for a raise, and all they'd say is, 'Maybe later on.' "

Knickerbocker Avenue is in many ways the face of New York's traditional retail life outside of central Manhattan's wealthy shopping locales, with bodegas, low-cost stores, and ethnic restaurants jumbled together in a confusion of awnings and blaring signs. Immigrant shopping strips like this one in Bushwick and others in Corona, Jamaica, Sunset Park and Washington Heights not only serve the working class but just as often exploit it with widespread wage violations, according to economists, sociologists, immigrant advocates and community groups.

"New York is like the wild, wild West," said Annette Bernhardt, a senior policy analyst with the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University Law School. "The violations are on such a scale that nobody can monitor all of them." She said widespread violations in Bushwick mirrored those in many businesses that rely on immigrants - greengrocers, laundries, restaurants and garment factories.

The large number of unskilled immigrant workers, many of them here illegally, helps create a fertile climate for wage violations on streets like Knickerbocker. In addition, many immigrant storeowners are unfamiliar with wage laws and not much concerned about them, and the government has been less than vigorous in enforcing them.

"It's pretty stunning the extent to which stores here break wage and hour laws," said Deborah Axt, a lawyer with Make the Road by Walking, an immigrant advocacy group in Bushwick. "The violations seem epidemic."

Robert C. Smith, a sociologist at Baruch College, said recent interviews and surveys he conducted showed that half of New York's illegal immigrants were paid less than the minimum wage, partly because many are too scared to speak out. But many legal immigrants also face wage violations, and some say storeowners offer them less than the minimum wage if they do not speak passable English.

It might seem odd that federal and state officials demand that employers pay the minimum wage to illegal immigrants. But officials say enforcing wage laws, even for those workers, is important to prevent the exploitation of any employees, legal or not, and to discourage employers from hiring illegal immigrants for cut-rate wages when jobs might have gone to Americans or legal immigrants at $7 or $8 an hour. In addition, wage enforcement helps deter off-the-books work that deprives the government of tax revenue.

Concerned about the high rate of wage violations, Make the Road by Walking and the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union have adopted an unusual strategy. They are collecting information about violations from scores of workers on Knickerbocker Avenue. The two groups plan to confront storeowners with this evidence and give them a choice: either face a lawsuit or government action seeking maximum back pay, or agree to unionization and face a less aggressive push for back pay.

Um, Mr. Reporter? If the government were actually policing these violations (they aren't), unions and non-profits wouldn't have to. Once again, the Times misses the rest of the story.

War

Congress faces tough issues after recess

By Maura Reynolds and Richard Simon

Los Angeles Times

WASHINGTON — When senators reconvene today after a week's recess, they will be returning to a chamber with much of its agenda in disarray.

The first item of business, and likely the most orderly, will be the confirmation of federal judges — ironically, the issue that has tied the Senate in knots for much of the year.

But while senators will appear on the floor in a decorous fashion to debate the two judges on the schedule, behind the scenes they will be tussling madly over what comes next.

In theory, Republicans want to proceed with the controversial nomination of former Undersecretary of State John Bolton to be ambassador to the United Nations. But it is uncertain how quickly Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., will be able to move it to the floor again.

Just before the recess, Democrats pulled together to block a vote on Bolton. Republicans denounced the move as a filibuster; Democrats insisted it was designed to pressure the White House to release classified information that, according to Bolton's critics, could help them make their case that he was unsuited for the U.N. post.

The dispute over Bolton ended a week that had begun with a surprise compromise over a push by Republicans to strip Democrats of their right to filibuster nominees to the federal bench.

Seven Democrats and seven Republicans defused the issue — at least for the time being — by making a pact among themselves under which the Democrats agreed not to filibuster judicial nominees except in "extraordinary circumstances."

That cleared the way for the confirmation of three of President Bush's long-stalled picks for federal appellate courts. The first, Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen, was confirmed before the recess. The second, California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown, is expected to be confirmed Wednesday. The vote on the third, former Alabama Attorney General William Pryor, could come as early as Thursday.

Some senators had speculated that the deal on judges might lead to a more collegial, bipartisan atmosphere in the chamber. Instead, as a result of the dispute over Bolton, many lawmakers left town seething — Republicans over what they considered Democratic bad faith, Democrats over what they considered Republican high-handedness.

As they return this week, that bad feeling is expected to linger. Republicans believe that they are only two votes short of the 60 they need to end debate on Bolton, and they are working to find them. Frist is unlikely to put the nomination back on the agenda until he is certain he has all the votes.

The drama was deferred, not defused. This is going to be a messy week.

Stuck

The Mobility Myth
By BOB HERBERT
Published: June 6, 2005

Consider, for example, two separate eras in the lifetime of the baby-boom generation. For every additional dollar earned by the bottom 90 percent of the population between 1950 and 1970, those in the top 0.01 percent earned an additional $162. That gap has since skyrocketed. For every additional dollar earned by the bottom 90 percent between 1990 and 2002, Mr. Johnston wrote, each taxpayer in that top bracket brought in an extra $18,000.

It's like chasing a speedboat with a rowboat.

Put the myth of the American Dream aside. The bottom line is that it's becoming increasingly difficult for working Americans to move up in class. The rich are freezing nearly everybody else in place, and sprinting off with the nation's bounty.

Economic mobility in the United States - the extent to which individuals and families move from one social class to another - is no higher than in Britain or France, and lower than in some Scandinavian countries. Maybe we should be studying the Scandinavian dream.

As far as the Bush administration is concerned, the gap between the rich and the rest of us is not growing fast enough. An analysis by The Times showed the following:

"Under the Bush tax cuts, the 400 taxpayers with the highest incomes - a minimum of $87 million in 2000, the last year for which the government will release such data - now pay income, Medicare and Social Security taxes amounting to virtually the same percentage of their incomes as people making $50,000 to $75,000. Those earning more than $10 million a year now pay a lesser share of their income in these taxes than those making $100,000 to $200,000."

The social dislocations resulting from this war that nobody mentions have been under way for some time. But the Bush economic policies have accelerated the consequences and intensified the pain.

A big problem, of course, is that American workers have been hurting badly for years. Revolutionary improvements in technology, increasingly globalized trade, the competition of low-wage workers overseas and increased immigration here at home, the decline of manufacturing, the weakening of the labor movement, outsourcing and numerous other factors have left American workers with very little leverage to use against employers.

Many in the middle class are mortgaged to the hilt, maxed out on credit cards and fearful to the point of trembling that all they've worked for might vanish in a downsized minute.

The privileged classes, with the Bush administration's iron cloak of protection, avoid their fair share of taxes, are reluctant to pay an honest dollar for an honest day's work (the federal minimum wage is still a scandalous $5.15 an hour), refuse to fight in their nation's wars, and laugh all the way to their yachts.

The American dream was about expanding opportunities and widely shared prosperity. Now we have older people and college grads replacing people near the bottom in jobs that offer low pay, no pensions, no health insurance and no vacations.

A fellow named Mark McClellan, who was bounced out of a management position when Kaiser Aluminum closed down in Spokane, Wash., told The Times in the "Class Matters" series: "I may look middle class. But I'm not. My boat is sinking fast."

Kicking butt and taking names, Herbert places the blame where it is due, the rich are freezing everybody else out and their friends in Congress are making damn sure it is enshrined in tax law. Notice that he uses the past tense to discuss "The American Dream." That is as it should be.

Stuffing the Smoking Gun

From Watergate to Downing Street
by Norman Solomon

Last month, on May 1, exactly two years after Bush's top-gun appearance, the Times of London revealed the "Downing Street memo" – instantly a huge story in the British press, but slow to gain any traction in major U.S. media outlets. Across the United States in early June, front pages filled up with stories about Deep Throat and the bygone Watergate era, but editors at major newspapers still couldn't spare prominent space for scrutiny of the Downing Street memo – smoking-gun minutes from a top-level meeting of British officials convened by Prime Minister Tony Blair on July 23, 2002.

The memo makes clear that President Bush was lying when he publicly kept claiming that he hadn't decided yet whether to order an invasion of Iraq. Bush's actual policy was to launch the war, no matter what. In addition, the memo said, at the top of the administration in Washington "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

Like Richard Nixon, the current president insists that he wants peace. And, in a twisted sense, he does. As the Prussian General Karl von Clausewitz remarked two centuries ago: "A conqueror is always a lover of peace."

On his own terms, of course.

Rhetoric and action once again diverge wildly.

Congregation of Pharisees

I think this is what my Jewish friends would call Chutzpah. That's when they are being polite.

Texas Gov. Signs Bill at Church School

By JAMIE STENGLE
The Associated Press
Sunday, June 5, 2005; 10:12 PM

FORT WORTH, Texas -- In a ceremony filled with religious references, Gov. Rick Perry signed a bill at a church school gymnasium Sunday that imposes more limits on late-term abortions and requires minors to get written parental consent for abortions.

The signing came as several hundred demonstrators _ some opposed to the signing of a bill on church property _ protested outside.

"It has been a tragedy of unspeakable consequences that for decades activist courts denied many Texas parents their right to be involved in one of the most important decisions their young daughter could ever make _ whether to end the life that was growing inside her," Perry told a crowd of about 1,000 people gathered at the Calvary Christian Academy. "For too long, a blind eye has been turned to the rights of our most vulnerable human beings _ that's the unborn in our society."

During the 90-minute program, Perry also signed a resolution to amend the Texas Constitution by banning same-sex marriages. However, that signature was only ceremonial since voters must approve the proposed ban in November.

"A nurturing home with a loving mother and loving father is the best way to guide our children down the proper path," he said.

Texas already had a parental notification bill, approved in 1999. The new, tougher measure requires a parent to provide written consent for unmarried girls under 18. The bill also restricts doctors from performing abortions on women who have carried a child for more than 26 weeks unless having the baby would jeopardize the woman's life or the baby has serious brain damage.

"It seems to me that people of the great state of Texas will be silent no more," said Rod Parsley, of the Center for Moral Clarity in Ohio. "Folks in this room understand, God is still watching."

The ceremony brought out about 350 protesters carrying signs. They included opponents of the ban on same-sex marriage, including two with posters reading "Hate is not a family value" and "God values all families."

Others were there to protest the use of church property for a bill signing.

Perry spokeswoman Kathy Walt said many of the critics "would object to this bill-signing if it were in a public school, a library, a Wal-Mart parking lot or any other venue, because they oppose pro-life and pro-family issues ."

Excuse me?? Let me explain something to you Ron. I'm sure that God is watching and God is probably not amused that you and your folks have the arrogance to speak like you know what God wants. I don't know what box of Cracker Jacks you got your Bible from, but you might want to insert another quarter in the Fun Fun machine at Wal-Mart and see if the magic claw can pull out a better translation of it. Last time I checked there were multiple passages about humans not being able to understand the ways of the Lord.

Let me make this clear, I'm not pro-abortion (pro-choice, but not pro-abortion), but your actions definately aren't pro-family (and we aren't even going to deal with the Church/State issues here).

Ron or Kathy, are you going to encourage your supporters to help out those babies that are born at say, 26 and a half weeks, and their families? Are you going to pony up the $$$ to cover the stay in a NICU that will probably run 12-14 weeks on the average and cost between $250-500 thousand dollars (assuming there are no complications)? Almost all families can't take that burden, and are in such a state of shock with the early birth that they don't know how to ge through the system. And while these premiees are technically viable at this stage, many can not breathe on their own and have to stay in incubators because they can't regulate their own temperatures.

Since we're at it, are you willing to support the parents of those children with laws that will protect them their jobs as they burn through their time off to be with those children in the NICU and later when they get home, since most of the mothers will be done with their Family Leave by then? Should this mother. already under extreme stress with a very very early baby have to chose between her job or her child? Since when is that pro-life or pro-family?

Kathy, since I've bolded your words, is it anti-family to support measures for universal health insurance so the families won't spend all of their life savings, and their relative's life savings on medical bills both in the hospital and out of it? Are you willing to use your position as the official mouthpiece of the Governor to push for more Medicaid funding for state/county/private organizations that provide the at home therapy that so many of these children will need in the years to come? After all, you've got the microphone.

If you aren't willing to do any of this, then SHUT THE H**L UP about what you think my morals are. If you want to be pro-family, then do something that supports them and not make statements about what a family should be. If you want to be pro-life, then work towards making the life of these children as great as they can be instead of forgetting about them once they scream.

Fourth Estate

Press in Iraq Gains Rights But No Refuge
85 Workers Killed in 2 Years

By Jonathan Finer
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, June 6, 2005; A01

BAGHDAD -- Israa Shakir scrawled out the first edition of the Iraq Today newspaper on a few sheets of lined paper 10 days after the fall of Saddam Hussein. Three months later, she said, a man followed her home from work and put a gun to her head.

Shakir had published a story about an Islamic group that was forcing Iraqi women to wear the hijab , a traditional Muslim head scarf. Someone circulated a pamphlet calling for her to be killed, and a colleague with contacts in Iraq's insurgency told her it would cost $200 to get her name off the hit list. She refused to pay, but for some reason her would-be executioner did not pull the trigger.

"I still don't know why he didn't kill me," she said, recounting the story in a recent interview. "I guess it was just a warning."

In an office cluttered with old newspapers and trinkets from her travels around the Middle East, Shakir, now 29, keeps a cell phone by her ear, a notebook in her back pocket and a 7mm pistol on her hip. More than two years after its launch, Iraq Today has grown into a broadsheet published daily, with a circulation of more than 5,000.

But as her ever-present sidearm suggests, Iraq is adjusting uneasily to its newfound press freedoms, which proponents consider as important to cultivating democracy here as free and fair elections. At least 85 journalists and other employees of news organizations -- the vast majority of them Iraqis -- have been killed here since March 2003, according to the International Federation of Journalists, which opened an office in Baghdad in April to distribute safety information.

More recent incidents have been particularly alarming. Five journalists were killed over a four-day period in April, including Ahmed Rabaie, a well-known reporter for Baghdad's al-Sabah newspaper who was kidnapped and reportedly beheaded. Later that month, a pair of columnists in Wasit, southeast of Baghdad, were sentenced to prison by a criminal court after they wrote stories critical of the provincial government and police, according to the Iraqi Association to Defend Journalists, an advocacy group that also is looking into several recent allegations of intimidation by the Iraqi government and police.

And May 16, on a highway south of Baghdad, insurgents stopped a minibus with 13 passengers aboard, three of whom carried press passes, according to Samir Adili of the Iraqi National Journalism Panel, a newly formed advocacy group. The three journalists were shot dead, he said.

"At the moment, things in Iraq are about as bad as it gets for journalists, and it is hardest for Iraqi journalists," said Robert Shaw, human rights and information officer for the International Federation of Journalists. "When Western media send their people in, they look seriously at questions of insurance, training for hazardous conditions and specialized equipment. But very few Iraqi reporters have these protections. And when they die, families get nothing because their employers don't have sufficient resources."

Journalism was already a dangerous business in the decade before the U.S. invasion in 2003, when Hussein's son Uday, known for his brutality, oversaw the media. Shakir worked as a reporter for the al-Ittihad newspaper, which, like every Iraqi publication, was required to feature either Uday or Saddam Hussein on its front page. Reporters had to submit their questions to government officials two weeks before an interview, and no follow-up queries were allowed. Mistakes, even those as innocuous as an incorrect date, were punishable by beatings.

After the government fell, an estimated 200 newspapers, magazines and other periodicals sprung up across the country, with aspiring journalists seizing the opportunity to publish more freely. Many of the early attempts failed, but others have emerged in their place. The United States channeled money into the Iraq Media Network, a collection of television and radio outlets and a newspaper.

"Initially, the level of responsibility with the press was not what you would want to see," said Richard Schmierer, a public affairs officer at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, citing what he said was biased reporting and the belief that some journalists worked closely with insurgents. "Now with a reduction in the overall number, you've seen a significant increase in quality. The press is a key, essential element to the development of an Iraqi society."

Today, surveys show that most Iraqis get their news through television. But in Baghdad alone there are still at least 100 print publications -- ranging from newsletters published irregularly by political or religious groups to independent newspapers -- according to Adili, who also works as a Baghdad correspondent for Dubai TV, a network based in the United Arab Emirates.

The most popular domestic television network is al-Iraqiya, a news and entertainment channel funded by the Iraqi government. The most influential and widely read newspapers are al-Sabah, which has a circulation of more than 50,000 and was founded after the invasion with U.S. funding, and Azzaman, which during the Hussein years was distributed in London, where its editor lived in exile. It now is published in Baghdad and in the southeastern city of Basra.

"We can report on everything we want and criticize whomever we want, which is progress," said Raed Qais, 28, a former newspaper reporter who now covers politics for Voice of Iraq Radio. Qais spends most of his days in the U.S.-fortified Green Zone, a four-square-mile enclave where most government offices and embassies are housed.

Even the Iraqi press is confined to the Green Zone. I wouldn't call this "reality based" reporting by any stretch of the imagination, even if it can get you killed.

Pillage, then Burn

I'm not surrprised that the Bigs haven't picked up this. Men don't talk about rape and it is a dirty little secret that women keep among themselves. At least a third of the women I know have been incested or raped. Why we are protecting men this way plays into their power games.

I'm a rape survivor and I don't think keeping secrets helps.

A Policy of Rape
Naka Nathaniel/NYTimes.com

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: June 5, 2005

NYALA, Sudan

All countries have rapes, of course. But here in the refugee shantytowns of Darfur, the horrific stories that young women whisper are not of random criminality but of a systematic campaign of rape to terrorize civilians and drive them from "Arab lands" - a policy of rape. Skip to next paragraph Multimedia

One measure of the international community's hypocrisy is that the world is barely bothering to protest. More than two years after the genocide in Darfur began, the women of Kalma Camp - a teeming squatter's camp of 110,000 people driven from their burned villages - still face the risk of gang rape every single day as they go out looking for firewood.

Nemat, a 21-year-old, told me that she left the camp with three friends to get firewood to cook with. In the early afternoon a group of men in uniforms caught and gang-raped her.

"They said, 'You are black people. We want to wipe you out,' " Nemat recalled. After the attack, Nemat was too injured to walk, but her relatives found her and carried her back to camp on a donkey.

A neighbor, Toma, 34, said she heard similar comments from seven men in police uniforms who raped her. "They said, 'We want to finish you people off,' " she recalled.

Sometimes the women simply vanish. A young mother named Asha cried as she told how she and her four sisters were chased down by a Janjaweed militia; she escaped but all her sisters were caught.

"To this day, I don't know if they are alive or dead," she sobbed. Then she acknowledged that she had another reason for grief: a Janjaweed militia had also murdered her husband 23 days earlier.

Gang rape is terrifying anywhere, but particularly so here. Women who are raped here are often ostracized for life, even forced to build their own huts and live by themselves. In addition, most girls in Darfur undergo an extreme form of genital cutting called infibulation that often ends with a midwife stitching the vagina shut with a thread made of wild thorns. This stitching and the scar tissue make sexual assault a particularly violent act, and the resulting injuries increase the risk of H.I.V. transmission.

Sudan has refused to allow aid groups to bring into Darfur more rape kits that include medication that reduces the risk of infection from H.I.V.

The government has also imprisoned rape victims who became pregnant, for adultery. Even those who simply seek medical help are harassed and humiliated.

On March 26, a 17-year-old student named Hawa went to a French-run clinic in Kalma and reported that she had been raped. A French midwife examined her and confirmed that she was bleeding and had been raped.

But an informer in the clinic alerted the police, who barged in and - over the determined protests of two Frenchwomen - carried Hawa off to a police hospital, where she was chained to a cot by one leg and one arm. A doctor there declared that she had not been raped after all, and Hawa was then imprisoned for a couple of days. The authorities are now proposing that she be charged with submitting false information.

The attacks are sometimes purely about humiliation. Some women are raped with sticks that tear apart their insides, leaving them constantly trickling urine. One Sudanese woman working for a European aid organization was raped with a bayonet.

Doctors Without Borders issued an excellent report in March noting that it alone treated almost 500 rapes in a four-and-a-half-month period. Sudan finally reacted to the report a few days ago - by arresting an Englishman and a Dutchman working for Doctors Without Borders.

Those women who spoke to me risked arrest and lifelong shame by telling their stories. Their courage should be an inspiration to us - and above all, to President Bush - to speak out. Mr. Bush finally let the word Darfur pass his lips on Wednesday, after 142 days of silence, but only during a photo op. Such silence amounts to acquiescence, for this policy of rape flourishes only because it is ignored.

I'm still chilled by the matter-of-fact explanation I received as to why it is women who collect firewood, even though they're the ones who are raped. The reason is an indication of how utterly we are failing the people of Darfur, two years into the first genocide of the 21st century.

"It's simple," one woman here explained. "When the men go out, they're killed. The women are only raped."

Kristoff acts like this is something new. The sexual subjegation of women is a pretty old theme to anyone who has been paying attention. He might want to pay attention to the rapes in his own back yard.

We're only raped, rather than killed. What a delightful policy.

Baghdad And Bust
Small-Business Owners Defending America Are Losing Their Shirts

By Amy Joyce
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, June 5, 2005; F01

Stanley Adams spent more than 30 years building up his business. But he had just days to decide what to do with his thriving livestock trailer companies when he was activated for duty in Iraq in April 2003.

"My wife didn't have a clue. I had to cram-course her and my daughter in a day and a half," said Adams, 52, who had applied to retire from the National Guard six months before he was called up.

While he was in Iraq, his wife had to shut down one of the Montgomery, Ala., companies, and the other one barely made it. Adams's revenue dwindled from $1.5 million in 2002 to just $250,000 in 2003.

"I had over a million dollars' worth of trailers here. Everything came to a halt, and all this money still had to be paid," he said.

Self-employed reservists and small-business owners who are called to duty run into problems other reservists don't. Most employees' jobs are protected by the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) when they are called to duty. But small-business owners like Adams have little support to help them save companies they have labored to build.

"When you get mobilized in the National Guard, they go through to make sure you have power of attorneys, all your affairs are in order, you have insurance, make sure your wife knows what to do. They tell you about the Soldiers' and Sailors' act [which protects reservists called up from eviction and provides some debt relief]. That's all real good if you're not an owner of a business," Adams said. "But it doesn't affect business credit cards or business loans or business notes."

Many small-business owners who must leave their companies behind, often at a moment's notice, have no plan for managing the business, or for a partner to take over. As a result, they find themselves deeply in debt or forced to shut down while they serve their country. Some businesses never recover.

"USERRA doesn't really cover self-employment, and so there is no protection per se," said Maj. Robert Palmer, Air Force Reservist and public affairs officer for Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve, a Department of Defense agency. "Obviously, mobilization can be catastrophic to someone who is self-employed or a small-business owner. There's no question that it's a huge challenge. A reservist who is self-employed or owns his or her own small business has to calculate the risk."

Some lawmakers have attempted to bring attention to the situation.

Rep. Tom Lantos (D-Calif.) introduced a bill in the House in February -- a Senate version was introduced last month -- that would provide for tax credits for employers who lose key employees to active duty, including themselves.

A small-business owner could be eligible for up to $42,000 in tax credits under the Lantos bill.

But that's no help to those who have been called up during recent conflicts.

Robert Kalb, an orthopedic surgeon in Toledo, has been a Navy reservist since 1999 and was called to duty about nine months ago. "I had a lot of friends injured and killed in Vietnam, and I thought, it's a huge sacrifice people make and you have to do your part," he said. However, he didn't expect his sacrifice to include the possibility of losing his medical practice.

Kalb, deployed to Camp Lejeune in North Carolina, was told he would be gone "for a year or two."

"The experience has been extremely difficult," Kalb, 53, said. First he had to inform patients who had been waiting for surgery that he couldn't operate.Then he tried to find other surgeons to take over his patients' care. Kalb had 10 days to get everything in order.

"When you are in the military, you have no relief from your obligations to continue to pay your lease for your office, your equipment, and you have to continue to maintain staff to complete the transfer of care, provide medical records and take care of the patients' business," he said.

So far, Kalb estimates, he has lost more than $500,000 and is digging himself deeper into debt every day.

Ah, yes, small businesses, that great generator of American jobs. Think of this as another form of outsourcing.

Expanding Blogosphere

Technorati set to break 11 million blogs tracked

Blog tracking service Technorati is poised to pass a new milestone of 11 million blogs tracked at some stage over the coming 24 hours, with the count currently reading 10,934,128.

The latest milestone comes less than 1 month since the service broke the 10 million mark, and indicates a continued trend of rapid growth in the blogosphere, as well as continued improvements behind the scene in Technorati’s tracking software.

The popular service, a long time member of the blogging community, has now surpassed PubSub (10.8m) in terms of blogs tracked, but still remains behind Intelliseek’s BlogPulse, which is rapidly approaching 12 million blogs tracked.

I wonder what it all means?

Deflect and Deny

An Administration's Amnesty Amnesia

By Dana Milbank

Sunday, June 5, 2005; Page A04

The folks at Amnesty International are practically begging for a one-way ticket to Gitmo. After the human rights group issued a report late last month calling the U.S. detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, "the gulag of our times," top officials raced to condemn Amnesty.

President Bush: "It's absurd. It's an absurd allegation."

Vice President Cheney: "I don't take them seriously. . . . Frankly, I was offended by it."

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld: "Reprehensible . . . cannot be excused."

Funny -- these officials had a different view of Amnesty when it was criticizing other countries.

Rumsfeld repeatedly cited Amnesty when he was making the case against Saddam Hussein, urging "a careful reading of Amnesty International" and saying that according to "Amnesty International's description of what they know has gone on, it's not a happy picture."

The White House often cited Amnesty to make the case for war in Iraq, using the group's allegations that Iraq executed dozens of women accused of prostitution, decapitated victims and displayed their heads, tortured political opponents and raped detainees' relatives, gouged out eyes, and used electric shocks.

Regarding Fidel Castro's Cuba, meanwhile, the White House joined Amnesty and other groups in condemning Castro's "callous disregard for due process."

And the State Department's most recent annual report on worldwide human rights abuses cites Amnesty's findings dozens of times.

"This administration eagerly cites Amnesty International research when we criticize Cuba and extensively quoted our criticism of the violations in Iraq under Saddam Hussein in the run-up to the war," protested William F. Schulz, executive director of Amnesty International USA.

But Schulz isn't protesting too much. In the past week, traffic on Amnesty's Web site has gone up sixfold, donations have quintupled and new memberships have doubled.

The rest of the world has gotten the point: what's offensive is the administration's policies.

Documenting the Gap

Richest Are Leaving Even the Rich Far Behind

By DAVID CAY JOHNSTON
Published: June 5, 2005

The average income for the top 0.1 percent was $3 million in 2002, the latest year for which averages are available. That number is two and a half times the $1.2 million, adjusted for inflation, that group reported in 1980. No other income group rose nearly as fast.

The share of the nation's income earned by those in this uppermost category has more than doubled since 1980, to 7.4 percent in 2002. The share of income earned by the rest of the top 10 percent rose far less, and the share earned by the bottom 90 percent fell.

Next, examine the net worth of American households. The group with homes, investments and other assets worth more than $10 million comprised 338,400 households in 2001, the last year for which data are available. The number has grown more than 400 percent since 1980, after adjusting for inflation, while the total number of households has grown only 27 percent.

The Bush administration tax cuts stand to widen the gap between the hyper-rich and the rest of America. The merely rich, making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, will shoulder a disproportionate share of the tax burden.

President Bush said during the third election debate last October that most of the tax cuts went to low- and middle-income Americans. In fact, most - 53 percent - will go to people with incomes in the top 10 percent over the first 15 years of the cuts, which began in 2001 and would have to be reauthorized in 2010. And more than 15 percent will go just to the top 0.1 percent, those 145,000 taxpayers.

The NYT has been running this series on class in America for the last two weeks. Today, they give you the cold, hard economic data. Downward mobility is the fact. Scroll down and read On Luck.

Man: The Animal

Juan Cole pointed this article out. It is amazing to me that Rod Nordland could have been in country for two years and remained so naive.

Good Intentions Gone Bad
NEWSWEEK's Baghdad bureau chief, departing after two years of war and American occupation, has a few final thoughts.

June 13 issue - Two years ago I went to Iraq as an unabashed believer in toppling Saddam Hussein. I knew his regime well from previous visits; WMDs or no, ridding the world of Saddam would surely be for the best, and America's good intentions would carry the day. What went wrong? A lot, but the biggest turning point was the Abu Ghraib scandal. Since April 2004 the liberation of Iraq has become a desperate exercise in damage control. The abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib alienated a broad swath of the Iraqi public. On top of that, it didn't work. There is no evidence that all the mistreatment and humiliation saved a single American life or led to the capture of any major terrorist, despite claims by the military that the prison produced "actionable intelligence."

advertisement
The most shocking thing about Abu Ghraib was not the behavior of U.S. troops, but the incompetence of their leaders. Against the conduct of the Lynndie Englands and the Charles Graners, I'll gladly set the honesty and courage of Specialist Joseph Darby, the young MP who reported the abuse. A few soldiers will always do bad things. That's why you need competent officers, who know what the men and women under their command are capable of—and make sure it doesn't happen.

Living and working in Iraq, it's hard not to succumb to despair. At last count America has pumped at least $7 billion into reconstruction projects, with little to show for it but the hostility of ordinary Iraqis, who still have an 18 percent unemployment rate. Most of the cash goes to U.S. contractors who spend much of it on personal security. Basic services like electricity, water and sewers still aren't up to prewar levels. Electricity is especially vital in a country where summer temperatures commonly reach 125 degrees Fahrenheit. Yet only 15 percent of Iraqis have reliable electrical service. In the capital, where it counts most, it's only 4 percent.

The most powerful army in human history can't even protect a two-mile stretch of road. The Airport Highway connects both the international airport and Baghdad's main American military base, Camp Victory, to the city center. At night U.S. troops secure the road for the use of dignitaries; they close it to traffic and shoot at any unauthorized vehicles. More troops and more helicopters could help make the whole country safer. Instead the Pentagon has been drawing down the number of helicopters. And America never deployed nearly enough soldiers. They couldn't stop the orgy of looting that followed Saddam's fall. Now their primary mission is self-defense at any cost—which only deepens Iraqis' resentment.

The four-square-mile Green Zone, the one place in Baghdad where foreigners are reasonably safe, could be a showcase of American values and abilities. Instead the American enclave is a trash-strewn wasteland of Mad Max-style fortifications. The traffic lights don't work because no one has bothered to fix them. The garbage rarely gets collected. Some of the worst ambassadors in U.S. history are the GIs at the Green Zone's checkpoints. They've repeatedly punched Iraqi ministers, accidentally shot at visiting dignitaries and behave (even on good days) with all the courtesy of nightclub bouncers—to Americans and Iraqis alike. Not that U.S. soldiers in Iraq have much to smile about. They're overworked, much ignored on the home front and widely despised in Iraq, with little to look forward to but the distant end of their tours—and in most cases, another tour soon to follow. Many are reservists who, when they get home, often face the wreckage of careers and family.

Most of us who opposed the war predicted all these things. What's shocking is that a veteran journo like Nordland believed all the happy lies he was told, when anyone with a passing acquaintance with the history of occupations could have enlightened him in five minutes. The neo-cons and their followers believed that history didn't apply to them, and that empires create their own reality. That's silly. Until the end of time, human nature will continue to be human nature, and anyone who bets against it will lose.

On Luck

The Upward Mobility Myth
Michael Kinsley:
# Maybe we don't all have the same opportunities.

Three of the nation's top newspapers have been examining the national myth recently. The Wall Street Journal has looked at social mobility. In recent decades, financial inequality has been increasing, not shrinking. That didn't matter, many said, because studies show a constant shuffling of the deck.

Where you are today says little about where you might be tomorrow and even less about where your offspring will be in 25 years.

But it turns out these studies were flawed. Where you are is the best predictor of where your children will be. And immobility over generations is what congeals financial differences into old-fashioned, European-style social class.

The Journal series included a wonderful story, straight out of Trollope, about a vulgar arriviste trying to crash the absurd charity ball society of Palm Springs.

Less fun, but more telling, was a New York Times piece comparing three victims of heart attacks. The series has been especially good at capturing the subtle ways in which privilege manifests itself and gets transmitted over generations. It's not just money. It's not just IQ or education or blue blood or even good values. It's how all these combine into knowing which hospital to ask for when the ambulance arrives.

The Los Angeles Times takes over with a scary look at downward mobility. The national myth imagines the ascent from poverty to the middle class as a ratchet. But sliding out of middle-class prosperity is getting easier every day.

You can do it by losing your job, as the result of an accident or other health emergency, by squandering your savings. Globalization and technology may make everyone better off on average (I believe they do), but they land like a boulder on individuals who lose their jobs to foreigners and machines. Healthcare becomes more costly and employers get stingier about paying for it. And President Bush wants to make Social Security more of an opportunity to do well and less of a guarantee against doing disastrously. In short, if insurance means shifting risks from individuals to society, what has been going on lately is the opposite: shifting risks from society back onto the individual.

Of the many questions raised by all this, the most pressing is: What happened to the Washington Post? If the Post wants in on the discussion, there are still rich veins to mine. For example, it might reexamine the role of civil equality as a consolation prize for economic inequality.

This conceit seems to be eroding in two ways. First, money is playing an ever-larger role in the mechanics of democracy. Second, whole areas of life that were part of everyday democracy have fallen to the empire of money.

People increasingly go to schools with people of their own class, live in class-sifted neighborhoods, hold their Fourth of July picnics in their own backyards rather than the public park.

Meanwhile, despite months of superb reporting by three great newspapers, the question of how closely our national reality resembles our national myth remains open.

Does it matter whether your place in life is determined by your IQ or your schooling or your parents' wallets — all of which are beyond your control? As we learn more about the human mind, even qualities such as self-discipline seem to be a matter of genes, not grit.

The problem, in short, may not be that reality is receding from the national myth. The problem may be the myth.

Michael, Michael. You are just beginning to get a clue.

There are a lot of us who aren't even living as well as our parents. The downward slide has nothing to do with education, genes or pluck and a lot to do with luck.

This society has turned luck into a virtue. The complications of that are something we refuse to face.

The Lessons of History

Bush's Optimism On Iraq Debated
Rosy View in Time Of Rising Violence Revives Criticism

By Jim VandeHei and Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, June 5, 2005; A01

While Bush and Vice President Cheney offer optimistic assessments of the situation, a fresh wave of car bombings and other attacks killed 80 U.S. soldiers and more than 700 Iraqis last month alone and prompted Iraqi leaders to appeal to the administration for greater help. Privately, some administration officials have concluded the violence will not subside through this year.

The disconnect between Rose Garden optimism and Baghdad pessimism, according to government officials and independent analysts, stems not only from Bush's focus on tentative signs of long-term progress but also from the shrinking range of policy options available to him if he is wrong. Having set out on a course of trying to stand up a new constitutional, elected government with the security firepower to defend itself, Bush finds himself locked into a strategy that, even if it proves successful, foreshadows many more deadly months to come first, analysts said.

Military commanders in Iraq privately told a visiting congressional delegation last week that the United States is at least two years away from adequately training a viable Iraqi military but that it is no longer reasonable to consider augmenting U.S. troops already strained by the two-year operation, said Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.). "The idea that the insurgents are on the run and we are about to turn the corner, I did not hear that from anybody," Biden said in an interview.

Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.), who joined Biden for part of the trip, said Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and others are misleading Americans about the number of functional Iraqi troops and warned the president to pay more attention to shutting off Syrian and Iranian assistance to the insurgency. "We don't want to raise the expectations of the American people prematurely," he said.

After dialing down criticism of Bush's policy following the successful January elections in Iraq, congressional Democrats are increasingly challenging the president's decisions and public assessments, and developing alternative policy ideas. "The administration has failed to level with the American people," said Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.). "It's terrible because they refuse to provide a full picture of what is really happening there."

Reid traveled to Iraq in April and was confined to heavily fortified zones in and around Baghdad and prohibited from visiting some of the most troubled areas where the insurgency is particularly strong. "The place is in turmoil," he said. Since then, Reid said, he has been meeting with former Clinton administration officials in an effort to devise a new Iraq plan, including the possibility of calling for more U.S. troops and requesting additional international assistance.

The White House says the focus on recent killings overshadows substantial long-term progress in Iraq, where the January elections allowed the United States to turn over more control for security to the Iraqis and set the stage for a new constitution to be written and approved this fall. Once that happens, White House officials say, a democratically elected Iraqi government protected by a better trained and equipped Iraqi military will hold off what remains of the insurgency and gradually allow U.S. forces to withdraw. Iraq's recent decision to put 40,000 troops around Baghdad, the most ambitious military move yet by the two-month-old government, proves that the U.S. plan to eventually turn over peacekeeping duties is not only viable, but working, White House officials maintain. Bush and Cheney, however, continue to decline to set deadlines for how long U.S. troops will remain.

"I am pleased that in less than a year's time, there's a democratically elected government in Iraq, there are thousands of Iraq soldiers trained and better equipped to fight for their own country [and] that our strategy is very clear," Bush said during a Rose Garden news conference Tuesday. Overall, he said, "I'm pleased with the progress." Cheney offered an even more hopeful assessment during a CNN interview aired the night before, saying the insurgency was in its "last throes."

Several Republicans questioned that evaluation. "I cannot say with any confidence that that is accurate," said Rep. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio), a member of the House International Relations Committee. "I think it's impossible to know how close we are to the insurgency being overcome."

It's like Viet Nam. It will take a decade to learn how bad this is.

With avian flu and an economic collapse lurking, I wonder if the lesson will be absorbed.

Always Temporary

Judge orders state to keep temps on job

By KARIN RIVES
June 4, 2005

A Wake County Superior Court judge ordered the state to keep temporary employees on the payroll even if they've worked longer than a year, raising the stakes in a lawsuit that could affect thousands of state workers.

The N.C. Justice Center, a Raleigh-based nonprofit group, sued the state in late April on behalf of temporary state workers who allege they have worked for years without benefits. North Carolina law requires agencies to extend benefits to those who work past 12 months.

Some state agencies have either ignored the rule or circumvented it by laying people off for a month every 11 months. Although people who work 11-month schedules are not part of the lawsuit, Superior Court Judge Evelyn Hill included them in her June 1 temporary restraining order.

"The state of North Carolina is to refrain from discharging any temporary state employee on either the grounds that the employee cannot work more than eleven consecutive months, or because of this lawsuit," she wrote.

State Controller Robert L. Powell said last month that about 24,000 people on the state's central payroll system have been temping in the past three years. The number shows how heavily agencies have relied on temporary help to carry out their mission in a tight fiscal environment, and how vulnerable the state may be if the court grants the lawsuit class action status.

Several large agencies known to have numerous temporary workers, including the Department of Transportation, have their own payroll system, which means the total number is higher than 24,000. Nobody knows how many of those worked more than 12 months without benefits.

Hill's order came in response to a motion the four plaintiffs' attorneys filed Wednesday after learning that state agencies were telling all temporary employees who had been working for more than 12 months to take a month off.

Managers at several agencies sent out messages last week informing offices with temporary workers of the new policy, court records show. One internal message circulated at the N.C. Division of Emergency Management said that Temporary Solutions, the state's temporary staffing office in Raleigh, had issued the directive.

Any temporary employees whose services were deemed critical would be transferred to an outside staffing agency, the message said.

Another internal message at N.C. Department of Transportation urged offices to also track all new temporary employees to make sure they don't stay longer than a year on the payroll.

"In other words," the message said, "temporary employees will need a break in service."

This is a very interesting case, because I doubt that most temp workers for the state government here know that they are eligible for benefits after a year. During the last couple of years, most state agencies, like private industry, have dramatically increased the use of temps to get the work done. Some of it, as the article points out, is due to skyrocketing health care costs. Heck, even full time state employees like my wife are seeing their share of costs increase. There are other factors that are involved though.

The State is taking advantage of a job market where you can get people that are vastly overqualified for a position and put them in there for peanuts compared to what they are really worth. Combine that with the fact that many of the office assistant jobs barely pay a living wage, thus attracting many applicants that are less than qualified, and there is a real problem. I have worked in a couple of agencies over the years, before a steady teaching job appeared, and have done all kind of work for the state for virtually nothing. After all, how much education does it take to conduct a phone survey for the Dept. of Agriculture (before or after you collect illegal campaign donations from Fair vendors)?

Also, many of these jobs do no pay the same as a similar job in private industry. The flip side is that your job is protected once you are tenured and it is nearly impossible to get rid of someone short of them beating a group of girl scouts in front of a TV camera. Trust me, I’ve heard horror stories about people who are so incompetent that you wonder how they lasted long enough to get tenured.

For too many years, North Carolina, like many states, has dumped on their professional paid employees. A lot of that has to do with the economic downturn brought on by the dot com burst (especially here in the Research Triangle Park) and a legislature that refuses to consider practical and easy ways to raise revenues (cigarette tax) . Some of it also deals with the politics. The Republican candidate for Governor ran on the traditional platform of “cutting waste in government”. Those of us who actually know something about the state government were wondering where he was going to cut the fat from, since we know that the Dept. of Transportation wasn’t going to be touched. Thankfully, State Senator Ballentine, often mocking referred to as “Ballentine the Boy Wonder” since he was so young, lost easily but his accusation didn’t because most people know someone who knows someone that’s dealt with less than pleasant or capable government workers.

On top of that, State employees have not received a true raise in their pay in almost 5 years and yet they are being asked to do more with less. North Carolina isn’t alone in this treadmill of temps and the issue of health care for temporaries isn’t going away. Now, everyone I’ve ever dealt with at the state temp agency has been on the up and up, but the law is the law and if we don’t like, get it changed.

I’m ecstatic that the judge is seriously considering this issue and that the media is covering it. Perhaps the legislature should just cave in and actually create positions for these people instead of the shell game sham that we have now.

Reality Check

Bosnian Execution Video Shakes Families

By KATARINA KRATOVAC
Associated Press Writer
Friday June 3, 2005

BELGRADE, Serbia-Montenegro (AP) - The Serb paramilitaries prodded the six skinny young Bosnian Muslims - their hands tied behind their backs - through the tall green grass, and then shot them one by one. The bodies slumped to the ground. Gruesome video of the July 1995 killings near Srebrenica was shown this week in Serbia, forcing Serb leaders to finally acknowledge their country's role in the worst massacre in Europe since World War II.

The pictures mark the first time most Serbs have seen such images and could change the way the nation thinks of the slaughter in Bosnia, where Serb troops overran the enclave and killed 8,000 Muslim men and boys after separating them from women. Several hundred Dutch troops sent by the U.N. as peacekeepers did little more than look on.

It could also help authorities in extraditing the alleged masterminds of the Srebrenica massacre - wartime Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic and his military commander Gen. Ratko Mladic - to the U.N. war crimes tribunal, which has indicted them for genocide and crimes against humanity.

The shocking TV images prompted Serbian officials to acknowledge publicly that war crimes were committed by Serbs during the wars in the Balkans in the 1990s.

``Everything burst - the whole bubble of hiding evidence and denying crimes - within the 10 minutes it took to broadcast the video,'' said Natasa Kandic, a human rights activist from the Belgrade-based Humanitarian Law Fund.

Serbian President Boris Tadic somberly told the nation the images were ``proof of a monstrous crime committed against persons of a different religion. And the guilty had walked as free men until now, walked among us.''

Police arrested 10 suspects after the images were shown on Belgrade TV. Four remained in custody Friday.

Serbian Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica - who for years stood silent about war crimes committed by Serbs - said Thursday a ``swift police response to the harrowing video was crucial for our country.''

``It's difficult to say what is more defeating - the horrific images of the killings or this country's 10-year refusal to face the bloody quagmire of past crimes,'' said Belgrade professor and women's rights activist Vesna Rakic-Vodinelic.

The video, apparently made by Serb troops, shows men in camouflage uniforms wearing red berets emblazoned with the Serbian flag taking the six prisoners - some still in their teens - from a truck, hands tied behind their backs. The troops shouted ``Yalla, yalla'' - or ``Go, go'' in Arabic - mocking the victims' Muslim religion.

Four were then shot one by one in the back. They slumped into the tall grass, and the two others were ordered to carry the bodies into a barn where they, too, were killed. At times, the paramilitary troops cursed and sneered at the prisoners.

I can only hope that the "red state" citizens will react the same way once the truth of Iraq and the War on Terror cuts through their fantasy-land. Many of us hoped that Micheal Moore's movie would do it, but apparently it didn't. The Serbs have a long way to go to not only understand what was done in their name, but also to accept responsibility for it. It's taken the Germans a long time to come to terms with World War II, many people claim that the Japanesse still haven't.

How many more CD's of abuse or reports from Amnesty International will it take for the US? Who honestly believes that it's just a "few bad apples"? There is a great quote at the end of the article that goes:

But Justice Minister Zoran Stojkovic said the video and domestic war crimes trials may help change attitudes. ``When you face the facts, the truth can no longer be manipulated,'' he said.

He's clearly got more faith in the media and people than I do. It's my kids that are going to look at me in 10 years and ask "Why did this happen?" I hope I can come up with a good answer because I don't have one right now.

Mark Felt

No, I'm not going to write about the Mark Felt story (and all of the bloviation tomorrow is something I'll take a pass on, thanks.) Here's why.

It's not a story. It doesn't advance our understanding of Watergate and the circumstances of that time one bit. Everybody who was alive at the time knew that FBI investigations were politicized. This is simply not news.

I cut my teeth as a broadcaster and journo during the Watergate hearings and they came in my headphones every afternoon as I manned the broadcast board at KUOM in Minneapolis.

I see a sad and ill old man trying to catch his 15 minutes of fame while he still has time. That's all this is.

Smoking Gun

Bolton Said to Orchestrate Unlawful Firing

By CHARLES J. HANLEY
AP Special Correspondent

John R. Bolton flew to Europe in 2002 to confront the head of a global arms-control agency and demand he resign, then orchestrated the firing of the unwilling diplomat in a move a U.N. tribunal has since judged unlawful, according to officials involved.

A former Bolton deputy says the U.S. undersecretary of state felt Jose Bustani "had to go," particularly because the Brazilian was trying to send chemical weapons inspectors to Baghdad. That might have helped defuse the crisis over alleged Iraqi weapons and undermined a U.S. rationale for war.

Bustani, who says he got a "menacing" phone call from Bolton at one point, was removed by a vote of just one-third of member nations at an unusual special session of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), at which the United States cited alleged mismanagement in calling for his ouster.

The United Nations' highest administrative tribunal later condemned the action as an "unacceptable violation" of principles protecting international civil servants. The OPCW session's Swiss chairman now calls it an "unfortunate precedent" and Bustani a "man with merit."

"Many believed the U.S. delegation didn't want meddling from outside in the Iraq business," said the retired Swiss diplomat, Heinrich Reimann. "That could be the case."

Bolton's handling of the multilateral showdown takes on added significance now as he looks for U.S. Senate confirmation as early as this week as U.N. ambassador, a key role on the international stage, and as more details have emerged in Associated Press interviews about what happened in 2002.

Let's hope Biden's staff is all over this like white on rice. This, along with the Downing Street Minutes, are all we need for an impeachment hearing. Are you paying attention, Rep. Conyers.

Poodle Press

A study in emasculation

In the US media, a mission to explain has been replaced by a mission to avoid

Henry Porter
Saturday June 4, 2005
The Guardian

The Post's sister publication Newsweek has just had its nose rubbed in the dirt by the administration after what is still, I believe, a questionable scandal involving an item alleging that the Qur'an had been flushed down the toilet at Guantánamo. Questionable because Newsweek's erroneous report, which was based on an official source, palls in comparison to the illegality of the detention at Guantánamo and the outsourcing of torture by the administration all over the Middle East. And yet Bush's spokesman Scott McClellan insisted that the humbled magazine should go further than mere apology by speaking out about the "values that the United States stands for ... the values that we hold so dearly".

What is so worrying about the Newsweek story was the cowed reaction of the press. In some cases they scrambled to pay obeisance to the White House's tough line, quite forgetting that the kerfuffle distracted from the worsening situation in Iraq in which scores of lives are lost every day. Marty Peretz, the owner of the New Republic, took space in his own publication to attack the Newsweek reporter Michael Isikoff, who by the way was once the hero of conservatives for his hounding of Bill Clinton.

'The Newsweek delinquency," he wrote, "broaches still another lesson that journalists will have to face, however reluctantly: that confidential sources - especially 'reliable' confidential sources, which may mean eager sources who are too willing to tell because they have their own personal agendas to serve - can be untrustworthy. The Newsweek scandal deserves to exacerbate the debate in the general culture about the legitimacy of anonymous sources that is now burgeoning in American journalism."

This is one of the most knuckleheaded utterances ever made by a proprietor of current affairs magazine. It is plain that, despite all his wealth and shrewdness, Peretz does not possess an elementary understanding of the sacred duty of the press, which, however dishonoured and ignored, is to watch government and make it answerable when the processes of democracy are corrupted by politics and the self-interest of politicians.

The motivated source that he describes perfectly delineates Deep Throat's position during Watergate. Felt probably did have an agenda influenced by the fact that Nixon had made Patrick Gray head of the FBI when Felt was clearly the better and more experienced candidate. That would have ruled Felt out as a source under a Peretz editorship, even though Felt was primarily motivated by a deep revulsion at what was going on around him. He knew that all investigations into the Watergate break-in and the activities of the Committee to Re-elect the President (Creep) were being fed back to the White House by Nixon's man, Pat Gray. The CIA was also providing Felt's investigators with false leads at Nixon's behest.

As Felt remarked to Woodward long before Watergate, the Nixon White House was "corrupt" and "sinister". Eventually the Watergate cover-up compelled him to the lonely and dangerous role of Deep Throat, but one cannot imagine that this was something Felt - a career G-man who admired J Edgar Hoover - wanted for himself.

We must remember that these were dark days. Nixon fought and won an election during the Watergate scandal and, had it not been for the persistence of the Post and the wary guidance provided by Deep Throat, he might well have survived to serve a full second term. Had Peretz been editor of the Post at the time, all that criminality and corruption might well have gone unpunished.

It is good that Deep Throat has at last come in from the cold at a time when his country needs many more men and women like him. Let us hope the media are still willing and able to help a great American hero like Mark Felt.

This is the reason you have to read the foreign press to find out what is going on and what is being done in our name around the world.

Time Running Out

Emergency docs say plan for flu pandemic must be shared with front-line staff

Jim Macdonald
Canadian Press

June 2, 2005

"What's at stake is nothing short of chaos," said Dr. Louis Francescutti, director of the Alberta Centre for Injury Control and Research, who acted as moderator of a panel that included doctors from the United States, Mexico and Britain.

Influenza authorities fear a deadly form of flu virus, which has become endemic in bird stocks in some parts of Southeast Asia, may acquire the ability to transmit easily to and among humans, sparking a widespread flu outbreak.

"SARS wasn't even a dress rehearsal" for this sort of outbreak, Francescutti said. "You're going to have just about everybody trying to get into the health-care system, which will slowly collapse.

Dr. Matthew Cooke, who advises the British government on front-line medicine, suggested emergency departments could grind to a halt.

"We're talking about 25 per cent of . . . staff being off sick and a doubling of patient numbers. And from what I've heard, Canada already has a really big issue with overcrowding in emergency departments."

It's not that Canada hasn't outlined how it would handle what some say is an inevitable pandemic, but those plans haven't reached health-care workers "in the trenches," said Dr. Mark Joffe.

"Are we ready on the front lines today? Probably not," said Joffe, an associate professor of infectious diseases at the University of Alberta. "Every physician and every health-care professional ought to be asking themselves what will their role be during a time of pandemic."

Joffe urged emergency medical staff at a convention in Edmonton to act quickly to find out what plans are in place in their health-care facilities.

"You're going to be on the front lines whether you like it or not," he said.

That makes it important to give health-care workers the highest priority when it comes to vaccinations, added Dr. Dan Cass, chief of emergency medicine at St. Michael's Hospital in Toronto.

Cass pointed to the outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome in Ontario's capital in 2003 that resulted in almost four dozen deaths, including four health-care workers. The crisis made doctors and nurses realize they needed to take greater precautions to protect themselves.

"We've being doing stuff that's really stupid in emergency medicine for a long time," said Cass. "It really took something like SARS for us to step back and say, 'Why aren't we putting masks on?' "

In general, the panellists agreed that preparation for a widespread flu outbreak needs to be greatly hastened in Canada, Britain and Mexico, and that there really hasn't been much planning in the United States.

"Even after watching Canada deal heroically and effectively with SARS . . . we still didn't get it in the U.S.," said Dr. Art Kellermann, chairman of emergency medicine at Emory School of Medicine in Atlanta.

"When I look at our level of preparedness in the United States, what I come away with is we'd better pray it doesn't happen, he said.

"Plans are half-baked. We've known about this threat for years. We really now have very little time to be able to cope with this in an appropriate manner."

In the UK, the Royal Institution in conjuction with the journals Nature and Foreign Affairs have created a new initiative to raise the profile of avian influenza and spurs governments to get in gear.

Citing a lack of adequately coordinated global preparation for what leading scientists fear is an inevitable outbreak of a deadly flu pandemic that could rapidly kill up to tens of millions of people, three of the world’s most prestigious science and policy institutions have launched an initiative to catalyze improved preparedness for a pandemic.

The initiative’s goal is to combine the influence of the 200 year-old Royal Institution and leading journals Nature and Foreign Affairs to bring together top scientists with politicians and industry leaders from around the world to improve preparations for a pandemic – whether caused by nature or by deliberate human action. Together, these institutions reach more than one million of the world’s foremost scientists and policy makers. In coordination with RiSci, the three institutions plan special issues, meetings, briefings, and websites aimed at ‘cross-fertilising’ science, government, and business planning. Collaboration is also planned with IBM and the World Health Organization.

The World Health Organization (WHO) last week declared avian influenza ‘the most serious known health threat the world is facing today’. Yet, despite efforts by WHO and others to alert and prepare the world for this potential health catastrophe, the project’s Steering Committee believes that not enough political will has been brought to bear to develop and implement WHO’s recommendations across borders and among science, government, and industry.

New World Order

Bill Lind has some thoughts on Rummy's legacy, following David Hackworth's funeral earlier this week:

-- A volunteer military without volunteers. The Army missed its active-duty recruiting goal in April by almost half. Guard and Reserve recruiting are collapsing. Retention will do the same as “stop loss” orders are lifted. The reason, obviously, is the war in Iraq. Parents don’t want to be the first one on their block to have their kid come home in a box.

-- The world’s largest pile of wrecked and worn-out military equipment (maybe second-largest if we remember the old Soviet Navy). I’m talking about basic stuff here: trucks, Humvees, personnel carriers, crew-served weapons, etc. This is gear the Rumsfeld Pentagon hates to spend money on, because it does not represent “transformation” to the hi-tech, video-game warfare it wrongly sees as the future. So far, deploying units have made up their deficiencies by robbing units that are not deploying, often National Guard outfits. But that stock has about run out, and some of the stripped units are now facing deployment themselves, minus their gear.

-- A military tied down in a strategically meaningless backwater, Iraq, to the point where it can’t do much else. A perceptive reader of these columns recently wrote to me that “China has the luxury of the U.S. inflicting grievous wounds, economic and military, on itself from our commitment to spread ‘democracy’ . . . Although the Iraqi insurgents may have the limited purpose of ending an occupation, other global actors can sit back and watch us bleed ourselves slowly to, at least, a weakened state. From that point of view, the last thing these other actors wish to see is either a victory or a quick defeat. Instead, events are proceeding nicely as they are.” Exactly correct, and those other actors include al Qaeda.

--Commitments to hundreds of billions of dollars worth of future weapons programs that are militarily as useful as Zeppelins but less fun to watch. If the Army had its Future Combat System, a semi-portable Maginot Line that will cost more than any Navy or Air Force program of equal uselessness, in Iraq or Afghanistan today, would it make any difference? No. Maybe FCS really stands for Funnels Cash System.

--A world wary of U.S. intentions and skeptical of any American claims about anything. In business, good will is considered a tangible asset. In true “wreck it and run” fashion, Rumsfeld & Co. have reduced the value of that asset to near zero. A recent survey of the German public found Russia was considered a better friend than the United States.

--Finally, the equivalent of an unfavorable ruling by a bankruptcy judge in the form of a lost war. We will be lucky if we can get out of Iraq with anything less than a total loss.

It tells you how blind the media are that they can't see this. I have nothing to add. Lind tells the truth.

Technical difficulties

Blogging from my laptop this weekend. The desktop crashed and needs to see the doctor, which can't happen for a little while yet. This will slow me down considerable (don't have all those bookmarks loaded in this machine yet.) The guests will be in this weekend to help out. I may try some of that wifi blogging from Starbucks this weekend. Give the boys a hand for helping out. Until I get my root email address set up on this machine, use my gmail account for all communication

[email protected]

Have you got plans for the weekend?

So When Will the Bush Administration Apologize to Newsweek?

Pentagon Details Abuse Of Koran
Detainees' Holy Books Were Kicked, Got Wet

By Josh White and Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, June 4, 2005; Page A01

The U.S. military released new details yesterday about five confirmed cases of U.S. personnel mishandling the Koran at the prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, acknowledging that soldiers and interrogators kicked the Muslim holy book, got copies wet, stood on a Koran during an interrogation and inadvertently sprayed urine on another copy.

Brig. Gen. Jay W. Hood, commander of Joint Task Force Guantanamo, who completed the three-week inquiry this week into alleged mishandling of the Koran, confirmed five cases of intentional or unintentional mishandling of the holy book, which appear to be unrelated, from among 19 alleged incidents since the detention facility opened in January 2002. His investigation also found 15 incidents of detainees desecrating Korans.

In a news release from the U.S. Southern Command late yesterday, Hood expanded on statements he made at a Pentagon news briefing last week, when he characterized the incidents as rare, isolated and largely inadvertent. Officials said they have issued more than 1,600 Korans at the facility.

"Mishandling a Koran at Guantanamo Bay is a rare occurrence," Hood said in the statement. "Mishandling of a Koran here is never condoned. When one considers the many thousands of times detainees have been moved and cells have been searched since detention operations first began here in January 2002, I think one can only conclude that respect for detainee religious beliefs was embedded in the culture of [the task force] from the start."

...

But the investigation's results also are contrary to a recent claim by a top Pentagon spokesman that there were no credible accounts of Korans being mishandled -- though he added that officials would nevertheless conduct an investigation.

The first case, in February 2002, arose when a detainee complained that guards at Camp X-Ray kicked the Koran of a detainee in a neighboring cell. Though interrogators and guards noted the incident at the time, there was no further investigation.

In another case, in August 2003, two detainees complained to their guards that a number of Korans were wet "because the night shift guards had thrown water balloons on the block." No further details of the incident were provided, but Hood's team determined the complaints to be credible and found "no evidence that the incident, although clearly inappropriate, caused any type of disturbance on the block."

Other confirmed reports included a two-word obscenity being written in the inside cover of a Koran, though investigators were unable to determine who wrote the phrase and concluded it was possible that the complaining detainee -- who was conversant in English -- may have defaced his own book. Another report, in July 2003, detailed an incident in which a contract interrogator stood on a detainee's Koran during an interrogation. The interrogator was fired for a "pattern of unacceptable behavior, an inability to follow direct guidance and poor leadership," according to the news release yesterday.

The most recent, and perhaps strangest, case of mishandling was documented on March 25, 2005, when a detainee complained to the guards that urine came through an air vent in his cell and "splashed on him and his Koran while he laid near the air vent." According to Hood's investigation, the guard who was responsible reported himself to his superiors and was reassigned to gate duty. The detainee was given a new uniform and Koran.

"The guard had left his observation area post and went outside to urinate," according to a summary of the incident. "He urinated near an air vent and the wind blew his urine through the vent into the block."

The question isn't whether incidents of Koran desecration by American guards and interrogators were rare and isolated; what's of concern is the larger universe they're part of. In Colorado, incidents of land at altitudes over 14,000 feet are rare and isolated, too - but they're part of a larger mountainous, high-altitude landscape. Same deal here: as this American Prospect article points out:

religious degradation was a tactic expressly approved by the Department of Defense. A memo signed by Rumsfeld in November 2002 listed “removal of clothing” as a permissible interrogation technique, along with “removal of facial hair,” also a technique designed to offend Muslims who wear beards. On December 2, 2002, Rumsfeld authorized interrogation tactics at Guantanamo Bay that included the removal of religious items, forced grooming such as shaving facial hair, and removal of clothing. Indeed, the Defense Department’s own investigation of operations at Guantanamo Bay, conducted by Vice Admiral Albert T. Church, found cases in which a female interrogator “touched and spoke to detainees in a sexually suggestive manner in order to incur stress based on the detainees’ religious beliefs.”

So what we have here is a campaign, authorized from the very top, to assault Muslims' religion and culture as part of their overall interrogation strategy. Koran desecration incidents may be rare and isolated, but they happened as part of that broader campaign of degradation of Islam at Gitmo and elsewhere.

And a stupid campaign it was, as the American Prospect says:

On the security benefits side, administration statements on the efficacy of or need for such techniques are hard to come by; what, if any, useful intelligence such techniques have produced is an open question. On the cost side, however, the effects seem clear. Commenting last week, Akbar S. Babar, central information secretary of Pakistan’s Tehreek-e-Insaf party, said that the Newsweek story was merely a “catalyst” that released Muslims’ growing anger over U.S. practices. Indeed, the protests in Afghanistan are only the latest in a series of riots against U.S. detention practices; in April, Agence-France Presse reported a riot at the U.S.-run prison in Iraq at Camp Bucca following rumors that a detainee there had been denied medical treatment. Whether or not the particular incident that sparked that riot actually occurred (and there is reason to suspect the source of information who reported the denial of medical aid), the past year’s worth of steady and unrefuted evidence from our own government of abuse, torture, and murder of detainees in U.S. custody renders the government’s blame-the-messenger reaction difficult to support. And it makes the worldwide -- not just Muslim -- suspicion of post-story U.S. denials predictable at the least.

For those who rely on popular anger to drive attacks on innocent civilians, the United States has turned over a powerful weapon. And for an interrogation tactic of unexplained value, it seems hard to believe that any circumstantial benefit is worth the generational price.

Multiple Mitts

Adviser says governor faked stance on abortion

By Raphael Lewis, Globe Staff
June 3, 2005

Governor Mitt Romney's top political strategist has told a prominent conservative magazine that his client has been ''faking" his support of abortion rights in Massachusetts.

''He's been a pro-life Mormon faking it as a pro-choice friendly," Romney adviser Michael Murphy told the National Review in a cover story hitting newstands today titled ''Matinee Mitt."

Murphy, a prominent Republican consultant, issued a statement of regret yesterday afternoon after a prepublication copy of the article circulated among political strategists and reporters and threatened to overshadow the positive exposure Romney was getting from appearing on the cover of two conservative magazines this week.

''The quote in the National Review article was not what I meant to communicate," Murphy's statement said. ''I was discussing a characterization the governor's critics use. I regret the quote and any confusion it might have caused."

Romney ran for US Senate in 1994 pledging to keep abortion ''safe and legal in this country." As a 2002 candidate for governor, Romney said he would not change the state's abortion laws. But in recent months, he has described himself as ''personally prolife" to out-of-town political audiences. And last month, he told USA Today that he is in a ''different place" on abortion than when he ran in 1994 against US Senator Edward M. Kennedy. A Romney spokeswoman said he had ''evolved over time," but would not elaborate.

Sounds like Mitt's position has "evolved" the same way his political ambitions have. The farther outside of Mass he wants to go, the farther his stance on abortion needs to move to keep some people happy. Hmmm... what are the technical terms for this that we learned in the last election boys and girls? Ah yes...

Flip -Flopping. Indecisive. Untrustworthy. Kerryesque (using Rush Speak).

And so many Republicans tell me they don't believe in the theory of evolution.

AIDS around the world

UN makes new plea in AIDS fight

June 4, 2005

The United Nations sounded new alarms over the devastating spread of the AIDS epidemic, and called on world leaders to immediately take new steps to solve a problem that threatens to overwhelm future generations.

"It's clear that the epidemic continues to outrun our efforts to contain it," UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said in opening statements to a one-day world conference on HIV/AIDS at UN headquarters in New York.

Delegates from 120 countries, including 40 ministers of health, have gathered here to discuss how to reach UN goals set four years ago aimed at reducing the impact of HIV/AIDS through timed targets.

"Last year saw more new infections and AIDS-related deaths than ever before," said Annan.

Approximately 40 million people are living with HIV in the world today.

According to Annan, only 12 per cent of those in poor countries who need anti-retroviral drugs are getting them.

Better funding and leadership are also necessary, said Annan, along with better education of women and girls, who account for about half those infected with HIV.

Director of UNAIDS Peter Piot said that in order to beat the epidemic, it is necessary that AIDS "get the same level of attention and concern by the world's leaders as they give to global security - not an iota less.

"We are still moving into a globalization of the AIDS epidemic, think of eastern Europe, central America, Asia, and maybe tomorrow, the Middle East as well," Peter Piot, head of the UN campaign, told a news conference during the meeting.

"I think it is a realistic (goal) in many countries, but not in every country in the world," Piot said.

More than 39 million people are living with the disease, despite US$8 billion in anticipated spending this year, most of them in Africa. Piot said the funds and programmes had made the most impact in East Africa, from Ethiopia to Rwanda, but not in southern Africa or in West Africa.

Some of the worst predictions have come to pass. Nearly half of those infected with HIV are women and girls, whether married or single, promiscuous or faithful.

Women need information, including how to use a female condom to protect themselves, often a sensitive issue, particularly among conservative United States religious groups who favour abstinence-only programmes and oppose programmes for prostitutes, homosexuals and drug addicts.

The US contributed roughly $2 billion towards UN efforts last year, but because of the some the ... *ahem* moral views held by key members of this administration, we refuse to fund programs that will definately work. Are they what we would do in a perfect world? NO

Just in case anyone missed the memo: this isn't a perfect world and we need to work together to stop the spread of this disease *yesterday*. Especially since we know how it is transmitted and how to prevent it from spreading too quickly.

Did you get the memo?

Protest draws attention to memo

The "Downing Street Memo" indicates an agreement on invading Iraq in July 2002.

By KEVIN GRAHAM
Published June 3, 2005

TAMPA - Just a stone's throw away from a life-size gorilla dressed in military fatigues was another oddity along Kennedy Boulevard Thursday - people protesting about a memo.

"Did you get the memo?" read the fliers.

"Air the truth!" said a poster held by retired Air Force Lt. Col. Joseph F. Bohren, outside the WTVT-Ch. 13 studios with about 10 others.

They were there because of what has become known as the "Downing Street Memo," minutes from a meeting between Prime Minister Tony Blair and his top advisers on July 23, 2002, at No. 10 Downing St., published May 1 by the Sunday Times of London . The minutes indicate that the United States and Britain had agreed to invade Iraq by the summer of 2002 - months before President George W. Bush asked Congress for permission to engage in military action.

The minutes, written by Matthew Rycroft, aide to British Foreign Policy Adviser David Manning, also suggest that U.S. officials deliberately manipulated intelligence to justify the war.

"If what's in these minutes is accurate, and we have been given no reason to doubt that, then it would appear that the president has committed high crimes, specifically lying to the American public and Congress and engaging in a conspiracy with his administration," said David Dawson, a Washington organizer for the Web site AfterDowningStreet.org, which has reproduced the memo.

The site was created by a coalition of political activists who are calling on Congress to investigate the meeting minutes.

According to the minutes, Sir Richard Dearlove, head of the British Foreign Intelligence Service, "reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and (weapons of mass destruction). But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

The White House press office on Thursday referred the Times to a May 23 press briefing by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, at which time he addressed the Downing Street minutes. But McClellan did not address the specifics of the memo.

"In terms of the intelligence ... if anyone wants to know how the intelligence was used by the administration, all they have to do is go back and look at all the public comments over the course of the leadup to the war in Iraq, and that's all very public information. Everybody who was there could see how we used that intelligence," McClellan said.

He acknowledged there was some breakdown in information gathered before the president decided to go to war.

Full disclosure: I was one of the protestors.

Re: "He acknowledged there was some breakdown in information..." - excuse me?

No. This was deliberate. There was no "breakdown in information". They knew exactly what they were doing.

Also see The Downing Street Memo

Joining the Club, Playing the Game

Pogge tagged me. My tags are at the bottom of the post.

If you want to play, answer on your blog if you have one and leave a link in comments. If you don't have a blog, leave your list in comments. This turned out to be quite fun.

Number of books I own: Thousands. It is really kind of embarrassing. No, I haven't read them all, and I don't own all the books I've bought. I tend to cull my shelves once a year in time for the American Association of University Women's book sale. All of the books go for scholarships and it delights me to think that my discarded reads go to help someone else. When I'm too distracted for deep thought, I like murder mysteries and popular science fiction and I tend to recycle genre fiction to friends who share the same tastes. This is a small condo and all of the shelves are already full.

Last book I bought: Hmm. Haven't bought a lot of books in the last couple of years. I've been unemployed most of the time and spending money on books just wasn't in the cards. I think the most recent book I bought was Gerald May's Dark Night of the Soul, which I haven't finished yet.

Last book I read: A satisfying murder mystery which was so forgetable that I remember neither the plot, the title or the author. I read it on a flight to Florida a couple of weeks ago, interleaving it with Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel, which I still haven't finished. I normally have four or five books going at the same time, a novel, some poetry and a couple of non-fiction titles.

5 books that mean a lot to me: I assume, pogge, that I can answer with the 5 books that mean a lot to me "right now." They do change over time.

In the top spot is Barry Lopez's Crossing Open Ground, which is really a theology of natural science. Lopez is writer of extraordinary power, both in fiction and non-fiction. This collection of essays on natural science keeps his sense of wonder for the natural world front and center. I own all of his books, and one of the great evenings of my life was spent hearing him read and then having him sign all of my copies. His Catholicism and sense of the mystery of creation, life and death, stand him proud. It is hard to pick only one of his books, I always take at least one with me when I head for the woods to camp, to remind me to keep my sense of wonder alive.

I read a lot of fiction, but more non-fiction. Novels are for falling in love with and one just can't do that all the time, it's too messy. The late Canadian novelist Robertson Davies is on my list of alltime favorites. He wrote trilogies and I love those because the length gives an author a chance to work out some large themes over a considerable period of time in the writer's own life--they get to be changed by their work. His last novel, The Cunning Man, read to me like the start of another trilogy, one his death interrupted. I love this book for the way that Davies loves and respects his characters, warts and all, the way that humans love other humans. While the book is blatantly religious, it does it from a deeply humanistic perspective, this is the best of the Enlightment, preserved for us in a wise, affectionate, knowing and laugh out loud funny novel.

Like the Canadian who tagged me for this little exercise (see link above), I have a long and abiding relationship with The Lord of the Rings. I read it for the first time in high school, and there was about a 20 year period when I re-read it twice a year. I re-read it again recently in preparation for seeing the movie cycle (yeah, I know, books and movies are different art forms....) and enjoyed the books ever so much more than the films. These books are the 20th century's response to myth-making at the highest level. They permanently shaped the way I see the human need for myth and narrative and religion.

Gerald May's Will and Spirit occupies a permanent spot next to my bathtub, my favorite reading place (outside of state/provincial parks somewhere in Maine or Atlantic Canada) in my house. I re-read it at least once a year and learn something new every time. I had the great good fortune to be one of Jerry's students, and this book is central for understanding his thought at the intersection of psychology and spirituality.

Last is a three-fer: I absolutely adore Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars series. These delightfully complex and thoughtful books understand the human condition, particularly the political animal, in a way I found psychologically convincing. These are novels that happen to be science fiction. They are compelling novels first.

Hmm. Now, whom shall I tag?

My list:

Jeralyn Merritt
Chris Burg
Steve Gilliard
Revere
Susie Madrak

What Liberal Media?

Today is Judy Woodruff's last day at CNN. That should make us happy. In exchange for that, starting next month, we'll get three solid hours of Wolf Blitzer every weekday. This doesn't make us happy. Remember, I watch CNN so that you don't have to. With the occasional exception of Lou Dobbs, the house that Ted built has really fallen on hard days. The rest of their newsreading staff mispronounces words which should be very familiar to anyone who pays the least attention to the news, asks ridiculous questions, can't extemporize and acts like they never actually HEAR any of the news they read. Back in the day when I was a radio news announcer, I had to prepare my own copy from the wire. That meant you actually had to read it and understand it before you committed it to the microphone. It doesn't take a J-School degree to do this professionally and well.

The Hidden Bad News

U.S. May Payrolls Rise by 78,000; Jobless Rate Falls to 5.1%

June 3 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. employers added 78,000 workers to payrolls in May, the smallest rise since August 2003, evidence businesses may be having doubts about the economy with fuel prices near records. The unemployment rate fell to 5.1 percent

The increase, which was less than half as much as expected, follows a gain of 274,000 jobs in April, the same as previously estimated, the Labor Department said today in Washington. The jobless rate, down from 5.2 percent in April, was the lowest since September 2001.

Consumers and companies are paying more for fuel this year than in 2004, diverting cash that could be spent otherwise or used to hire more workers. High energy prices threaten to pressure costs of other goods and services and will prompt Federal Reserve policy makers to raise their target interest rate later this month, economists said.

``Businesses are throttling down,'' said Richard DeKaser, chief economist at National City Corp. in Cleveland, before the report. ``There may some slowing in employment-related income and spending.''

Economists expected payrolls would rise by 175,000 last month, according to the median of 72 forecasts in a Bloomberg News survey. Estimates, all for increases, ranged from 115,000 to 240,000. Economists also forecast the unemployment rate would hold at 5.2 percent.

I spent much of yesterday talking with long term unemployed like myself who have lost our unemployment insurance and don't show up in BLS data. That 5.1% rate is artificially low because of who is not counted.

EPI's Job Watch tells us:

"Last month, jobs in the private sector finally reached the level of March 2001, when the last recession began. The 50 months that it took to regain peak-level employment in the private sector was the longest on record. Total employment (including government jobs as well as the private sector) also took a record 46 months to recover the level of March 2001. In contrast to the 50 months it has taken to regain the level of jobs since this recession began, it took an average of 23 months to return to the level of private employment at the onset of previous post-war recessions. The prior record, set during the "jobless recovery" following the 1990-91 recession, was 33 months. (For additional analysis of the May employment numbers, see EPI's Jobs Picture.)">

Take Back America from the Y Chromosome

I'd hoped to live blog from the blogpanel discussion last night at the Take Back America Conference, but the wireless connection they promised us didn't work in the auditorium (as it didn't work earlier in the day at one of the other panel discussions I attended.) From what I saw, the conference was a disappointment. It was not at all clear to me that the sponsors could respond if one asked, "Tell me in three declarative sentences what you hope to accomplish with this conference."

Susie's response to last night's "Blogfire" panel is on the link. There were a couple of female comics as warm-ups, but, once again, all the bloggers were male.

Our complaints to the sponsors were met with the argument that "Wonkette" (Ana Marie Cox) was supposed to be on the panel, but, as usual, she was a no-show. She's not a political blogger, she's a gossip columnist who works for Nick Denton's media empire. There might be a little difference between her and those of us who do this on our own nickel and without corporate Lexis accounts. Ya think?

I'm really tired of this. Other bloggers have worked to get me on some of these think tank panels, I'm local and I have a considerable track record, but I have, it seems, a penis deficiency. They flew Jerome Armstrong in for this thing. It seems that a woman with a political point of view can't be taken seriously on the Left (the Right has no trouble with its Michelle Malkin, Peggy Noonan, Ann Coulter, Mary Matalin, Karen Hughes, Bay Buchanan estrogen club.)

So, there were Suze and I sitting in the audience during the Q&A; period, when an audience member, a woman, asked the question about why the entire panel was male. We'd been sitting in the media area the whole freakin' day long, and they couldn't ask one or both of us to sub for the missing Ana Marie? The supposedly "liberal" think tanks that sponsored this conference haven't really thought things through and clearly know nothing about the blogosphere. This is the last time I spend money on one of these things.

No Hurt, No Foul

World Bank's Wolfowitz seeks to defuse Iraq doubts
02 Jun 2005 21:43:41 GMT
Source: Reuters
By Laura MacInnis

WASHINGTON, June 2 (Reuters) - In his second day as World Bank president, Paul Wolfowitz sought to assuage doubts over his role as one of the architects of the U.S. war in Iraq and said he would use his White House ties to push for development aid.

The former Defense Department second-in-command told a development conference on Thursday the Iraq war was morally justified, in part because of Saddam Hussein's human rights record.

"Would you really prefer to have Saddam Hussein in power?" Wolfowitz responded when asked whether he had regrets about his role in the war.

He also said the war helped bring democracy to Iraq and the millions of Iraqis who risked their lives to vote in the country's Jan. 30 elections embodied the early benefits of the conflict.

Where I come from, that's a straw man argument.

Before the war, I asked pro-war friends, "What is it worth to you, in blood and treasure?" and usually got some variation on the "pay any price, bear any burden" response. When I pressed further, I said, "we don't have unlimited guns and butter" and was told this would be easy. I note that this war is costing Wolfie and his class exactly nothing and he was just the recipient of his second tax break.

Anybody with a slight acquaintence with the history of conquest and occupation knew better. History may not repeat itself exactly, but, as Mark Twain noted, it does rhyme.

A Thing With Wings

Here's another of the NYT's "Op-Charts",giving us a very mixed picture of life in Iraq today. There is more wealth and less electricity. The Internet is up, wheat production is down. These are highly artificial indices and don't tell you much about the lives of ordinary Iraqis, but Brookings is a think tank, and they have to measure something to justify their existence, so there you go.

The Brookings authors tell the NYT

Many Iraqis today are wealthier than they were before the invasion, with more bustle in the streets and a new stock market that is trading billions of shares a month; yet by other measures, like electricity availability and the unemployment rate, Iraq's economy appears weaker than it was during the Baathist reign.

Much has been made, rightly, of the intensification of the insurgency. Last month's toll on United States troops was well above the average for the last two years, and was the deadliest yet for Iraqi security forces. Still, Iraqis are providing authorities with far more tips on insurgent activities than even a few months ago. And most people remain optimistic about the future. Even Sunni Arabs, who provide the largest pool of recruits for the insurgency, seem slightly more hopeful than a year ago. This optimism is welcome, because with security conditions poor and the economy a mixed bag, the fledgling political process has increasingly become Iraq's main good news - and main hope.

Given that the political process seems to have been shredded by car bombs and IEDs, hope seems like particularly thin gruel. I can't regard this Brookings report as particularly helpful.

Waiting

My spies tell me that this is a worst-case scenario. I'll grant that, but since we have no data on the current bug, we have no idea what we are up against. The source is unlikely. The Reg is a journal for tech geeks.

Bird flu: we're all going to die
By Charles Arthur
Published Thursday 2nd June 2005 11:25 GMT

The risks posed by an outbreak of flu passed from chickens in the Far East, in coutries such as Vietnam and Thailand, burst into the news in February. But now they've passed out of the news. Since then we've had more important things, like the Crazy Frog ringtone, to concern us.

Time to worry. And the scientists are. In fact, they're edgier than I've seen them since the BSE outbreak was in its earliest days and people were wondering if it might pass to humans. Quite a few scientists stopped eating beef at that point. Oh, you didn't know?

Now, their reaction is to write papers and watch what's happening, very closely. If you read the scientific journals (we do, so you don't have to) the articles are piling up. Last week the journal Nature pulled together an entire online resource on the threat of avian flu.

That's the trouble with scientists. They get an idea into their heads - CFCs and ozone, carbon dioxide emissions and the greenhouse effect, the transmission of BSE to other species such as humans - and they worry away at it until they determine what the answer and the mechanism is.

Here's what's they're worrying about now. The First World War killed seven million people. But the strain of flu that followed it - incubated, experts reckon, in pigs that were kept near the front lines to help feed the troops - killed up to 100 million, helped by the movement of troops returning home from the war.

Pandemics come around, on average, about every 70 years or so. There were small ones in 1957 and 1968/9, when "Hong Kong flu" - strain H1N1 - spread around the world, and one million died. That was tiny by pandemic standards. The scientists reckon we're overdue for an infectious, fatal strain of flu, one which can pass from human to human by the usual methods - sneezing or contact.

There's already a deadly strain of flu around - "chicken flu", better known to the scientists by the strain of flu virus that causes it: H5N1. But it only passes from chickens to humans, not from from person to person. If it could do that, it would have the potential to turn pandemic.

But maybe it already can. There have already been a couple of cases of deaths from H5N1 where the only logical pathway is human-to-human. The UK government announced in February that it will buy in thousands of doses of Tamiflu as part of the UK Influenza Pandemic Contingency Plan (PDF, 160kB).

Too bad - the latest results (reported by New Scientist; limited-time free access) suggest that Tamiflu isn't effective against H5N1. And anyway, New Scientist reports, the UK's order for 14.6 million five-day courses of Tamiflu treatment will take its patent owners Roche two years to fulfil. The company is still trying to develop ways to synthesise it from scratch.

The consequences of a really big, fatal flu epidemic on modern society are hard to imagine, partly because they're so enormous. Air passengers would be the first vector of infection, followed by the people who travelled with them in the train or Underground train or coach from the airport, followed by the family and friends of those people. Give it a few days and people would be falling ill, then over the next weeks dying.

If the strain is new and unexpected, there wouldn't be time to produce enough vaccine to treat it. According to a New England Journal of Medicine article by Dr Michael Osterholm of the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis - who is also director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy - titled "Preparing for the Next Pandemic", the 1950s-era methods of producing vaccines means we would need (ironically enough) one chicken egg per person to produce the vaccine, plus six months to culture it.

"The global economy would come to a halt, and since we could not expect appropriate vaccines to be available for many months and we have very limited stockpiles of antiviral drugs, we would be facing a 1918-like scenario," notes Dr Osterholm, who calculates that given current technology, we could vaccinate about 500 million people, tops - about 14 per cent of the world population.

Are you sure you'd be one? You'll have to get in line after the doctors, nurses, policeman and other critical workers. Don't count on it.

In the coming months, a new wiki will allow you to add to this body of knowledge. We hope to launch next week.

Thanks to the guest bloggers and I think you should give them a hand. On usually short notice (my life has been a mess lately) they pop in with critical information. I offer them thanks, you are the best, guys. I don't know how I ever lived without you.

Actually, I do, and I never want to go back there again.

Desperation Angels

American-run assistance center struggles to help Iraqis

By Alaa al Baldawy
Knight Ridder Newspapers

BAGHDAD, Iraq - As soon as Morooj Abdul Lateef's husband returned from morning prayers at his Baghdad mosque, a group of soldiers knocked on the door of their house and politely asked to detain him. They would be back in 10 minutes, the soldiers promised.

That was on May 14. She hasn't seen him since, and with a mix of American, Iraqi and private militia forces securing the country, she didn't know who came for her husband or where to start looking for him.

She canvassed the neighborhood, tried searching the area prisons and asked to speak to someone at the Ministry of Interior, which runs the police department. But no one could help her.

Desperate, she went to the Iraqi Assistance Center, an American-run office based in Baghdad that's designed to help Iraqis find arrested relatives, get medical care, get compensation for those wronged by American soldiers and find jobs. Opened two years ago, it has become ever more valuable as one of the few assistance centers that can navigate through U.S. and Iraqi bureaucracies.

Iraqis must get through five checkpoints to find the center, which is based in the Green Zone, where National Assembly members hold their meetings. Once the families get there, they are helped by one of the 35 Iraqi staffers - including a doctor.

The center receives 7,000 requests a month, said the director of the National Iraqi Assistance Center, Army Col. Chester Wernicki, of the 353rd Civil Affairs Command from Staten Island, N.Y. Iraqis often hear about the assistance center through other groups. Lateef first heard about it when she went to the Red Cross looking for her husband.

So far, the group has helped get 50 sick people out of the country for better care in Jordan, Kuwait and the United States, Wernicki said.

The center depends on donated plane tickets to get sick people to better medical care or for a hospital to make space for someone. As a U.S. military-funded organization, it can't accept cash donations, Wernicki said.

Funding aside, it's still hard to help people. The Iraqi government is fragmented, and information about arrests, accidents or medical procedures is scattered.

Some people waiting at the center complained that their case files had been lost. Others said the center demands too much evidence before it awards compensation. The most common gripe: waiting for hours for little information.

Workers at the center conceded that getting help can be difficult but said many applicants try to file false claims. A family that can show an American soldier wrongly killed a relative can receive up to $15,000, a worker at the center said.

Imad Mohsen Hasan, a 23-year-old Fallujah resident, said he fractured his leg while escaping the city before the November standoff with U.S. soldiers. He said he's been coming to the center to try to get money for his medical care.

"I have been coming back and forth to this center, yet got nothing," Hasan said. "If these people can't get me outside for treatment, they should at least pay me some money to do it myself."

Wernicki said the organization is doing the best it can to give Iraqis honest assessments.

"We have tried to build this organization so that people could feel they could come here to us and get help. What we don't want to do is have someone stretch that truth to make (Iraqis) feel that there is something we can offer here when we really can't," Wernicki said.

This work, essential to any hope of success, is at the bottom of the priority list

Empty Trade

US official urges China to crack down on piracy

By Richard McGregor and Andrew Yeh in Beijing
Published: June 2 2005 18:54

Carlos Gutierrez, the US commerce secretary, demanded that China immediately act to protect intellectual property rights on Thursday, calling piracy a “crime” that was comparable to counterfeiting money.

“Intellectual property rights violations are a crime and we don't believe we should be negotiating crimes with our trading partners,” Mr Gutierrez said in a toughly worded speech to the American Chamber of Commerce in Beijing. “Everything else (including textiles) is up for negotiation.”

The US has already imposed temporary restrictions on seven categories of Chinese textile imports, limiting their growth to 7.5 per cent a year.

Under World Trade Organisation rules, these curbs could remain in place until the end of the year if China and the US fail to agree on limits after 90 days of consultations.

Mr Gutierrez did not spell out what he expected Beijing to do to reduce piracy, which affects not just foreign films and music, but also manufactured goods, pharmaceuticals and chemicals.

China had a $162bn (€132bn, £89bn) trade surplus with the US last year, according to Washington's figures, the largest bilateral imbalance the US has recorded, and it is expected to be larger this year as the mainland's exports grow.

Mr Gutierrez said the US would attempt to reduce its trade deficit with China by exporting more, and by encouraging China to open its markets and to protect intellectual property rights.

So let me get this straight, if the Chinese would just "play by the rules" and open it's market we could put a dent into that $160 BILLION trade deficit????

Granted, I think the area of copyright can be a murky one. I have no problem going after people/groups that are stealing ideas and items that can harm the original producers reputation but...

If you are in a field, like entertainment or durgs, where the profit margain is insanely inflated, then I have a hard time feeling sorry for you. I know people who worked for drug companies in RTP (Research Triangle Park) and they'll be the first to tell you that most of the extra profits for their company's drugs, contrary to the PR, doesn't make up for research and development but goes to line people's pockets. The same is true for entetainment (it's fairly cheap to record and burn CD's for a band... most can do 3000 for around $10 a disc and still make a profit).

Besides, we are currently threatening the Chinese and the Brazilians with "penalties"... how can we afford to do that? Brazil has huge markets and the Chinese are currently floating our economy and currency. What happens when they stop buying our bonds?

An Internal Affair -- Zimbabwe

Zimbabwe is on of those places that really hasn't hit the radar of many of the people in America that are on the "left", maybe because it is as obvious of a crisis as Sudan or as trendy as Ethiopia. Let's face it, does anyone even care if another African country is busying tearing itself apart? Not really, at least not so long as Michael, Deep Throat, and other pretty pictures are on the TV (so how about them Spurs...).

Yet, the concerned Christian in me is very concerned about some of the things that are trickling out of that nation. Stuff like...

Zimbabwe Takes Harsh Steps to Counter Unrest

By MICHAEL WINES
Published: June 2, 2005

JOHANNESBURG, June 1 - Facing rising unrest over a collapsing economy, Zimbabwe's authoritarian government has apparently adopted a scorched-earth policy toward potential enemies, detaining thousands of people, burning homes and street kiosks and routing large numbers of people from makeshift homes in major cities.

The scope of the operation, which began in mid-May, is unknown, in part because a nationwide gasoline shortage has prevented some of those following events in Zimbabwe from monitoring the impact firsthand. But reports in the local press and from witnesses indicate that the police have detained or arrested as many as 30,000 residents in big cities and evicted hundreds of thousands more from shantytowns on the fringes of most cities.

The Movement for Democratic Change, an opposition party that was crushed in March elections that Western observers said had been rigged, contended at a news conference in the capital, Harare, on Wednesday that the police and soldiers had forced 1 million to 1.5 million people from their homes. Experts estimate Zimbabwe's population at 10 million to 11 million people.

Journalists and human rights advocates interviewed by telephone on Wednesday recounted scenes in which large numbers of the evicted people were camped beside major highways, unable to return to the city but equally powerless to reach rural relatives because of the gasoline shortage. Some of them, one human rights advocate said, had been there for a week or more.

Ok, this looks pretty bad, but when you include the AIDS epidemic rampaging through out Africa, that makes the situation even more dire. So how do you think any self respecting dictator responds to a crisis like this?

Zimbabwe Denies Need for International Food Aid

June 2, 2005

Zimbabwe today said it did not need any international food aid, despite predictions of a humanitarian crisis with up to four million people at risk of famine.

Social Welfare Minister Nicholas Goche told state radio the country had bought 1.2 million tonnes of corn from South Africa, and needed no more though it would still welcome extra supplies.

James Morris, the head of the UN World Food Programme, met with President Robert Mugabe yesterday to discuss what he described as “an enormous humanitarian crisis.” He said between three million and four million Zimbabweans would need food aid in the next year, especially between December and March.

The government claims that current shortages of many staples, including cornmeal, sugar and fuel, are the result of speculation and hoarding by black-market traders.

Police have arrested more than 23,000 people, mostly street vendors, and have burned or demolished thousands of kiosks and shacks in shantytowns around the country in what it describes as a clean-up campaign in the city and a crackdown on economic saboteurs.

Goche told state radio the corn purchased from South Africa was enough to alleviate shortages caused by drought. He said Zimbabwe was not making any request for food aid, but welcomed any that comes.

Before recent elections, Mugabe forecast a bumper harvest of 2.5 million tonnes of corn and told relief agencies to direct their efforts elsewhere and not “choke” Zimbabweans with unneeded aid.

But Goche’s top civil servant, Sydney Mhishi, predicted last week that even by rushed and preliminary government estimates at least 2.8 million people would need food aid in the coming year.

Wow. It's nice to see this type of stupidity and head in the sand activity isn't just confined to North Korea or Cuba. And the sad thing, it's probably a lot worse, but since Mugabe has kicked out all foreign reporters, who knows how bad it is.

It's too bad the leading light and standard bearer for democracy and free play isn't out in the forefront on this organizing the vast legions of religious do gooeders to save the day. Still, I guess the Canadians are busy right now so maybe if we can kick enough Congresspersons we'll have to do. Maybe some oil can be discovered to warrant our attention.

Open Thread

Posting will be light today, except for the guest bloggers. I'll be at the Take Back America Conference into the night, and plan to live blog the "Bloggerfire" panel tonight. I'll be live blogging the Judicial Nominations panel around noon today at Judging the Future. This is an open thread.

Have you read anything lately that left a big impression on you? What's next on your stack?

Flower Petals

20 Are Killed by Car Bombings in Iraq

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: June 2, 2005

Filed at 5:52 a.m. ET

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- Three suicide car bombings killed 20 people in northern Iraq on Thursday, including a top municipal council leader and a bodyguard of Iraq's Kurdish deputy prime minister, officials said.

Continuing violence during the past days has also claimed the lives of three children, a U.S. soldier and a Sunni Muslim cleric, underscoring the rampant, random nature of an insurgency that has killed almost 800 people since the April 28 announcement of Iraq's new Shiite-led government, according to an Associated Press count.

At least 12 people were killed in a massive explosion targeting a restaurant in Tuz Khormato, 55 miles south of the northern city of Kirkuk, the Iraqi Defense Ministry said in a statement. Police Lt. Sabah Hidayat said at least 40 people were wounded.

The suicide bombing tore apart the town's Baghdad Restaurant, where bodyguards of Iraq's Kurdish deputy prime minister, Rowsch Nouri Shaways, were eating, said police Brig. Sarhad Qadre.

''I was sitting inside my restaurant when about six cars parked nearby and their passengers came inside and ordered food,'' said restaurant owner Ahmed al-Dawoudi. ''Seconds later, I heard a big explosion and the restaurant was turned into twisted wreckage and rubble. Blood and pieces of flesh were everywhere.''

Shaways was not at the restaurant at the time of the blast, which killed 12 diners, including one of his guards. At least 40 were wounded. Kurds, who want oil-rich Kirkuk to be part of their autonomous Kurdistan region, have been regularly targeted by insurgent attacks.

The blast set ablaze eight cars in the restaurant's parking lot, the focal point of a bloody, rubble-strewn scene that U.S. and Iraqi police quickly cordoned off. Shards of glass, shoes and splattered breakfast meals covered the restaurant's floor as emergency workers raced around overturned tables and wooden chairs in a bid to treat the casualties.

In the northern city of Kirkuk, a suicide car bomber killed four Iraqi bystanders and wounded at least 11 others, said Dr. Bassam Mohammed of Kirkuk Emergency Hospital.

The explosion targeted a convoy of Toyota Land Cruisers carrying civilian contractors, damaging one of the vehicles but injuring none of its occupants, the U.S. military said.

Further south in Baqouba, about 35 miles northeast of Baghdad, another suicide bomber killed four people, including Hussein Alwan al-Tamimi, 41, deputy head of Iraq's northeastern Diyala provincial council since January, police Col. Mudhafar Mohammed said. Three of his bodyguards also died in the attack on his convoy; four people were wounded.

A U.S. soldier assigned to the Marines was killed when a roadside bomb struck the vehicle he was traveling in Wednesday near the volatile western Iraqi city of Ramadi, the military announced Thursday.

Another American soldier, attached to Task Force Liberty, died of non-battle-related wounds Wednesday in the northern city of Kirkuk, the military said. The incident is under investigation.

As of Thursday, at least 1,665 U.S. military members have died since the Iraq war began in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count.

The U.S. military also announced Thursday that an Iraqi civilian was killed and another wounded in a suicide bombing Wednesday near the village of Mishada, 20 miles north of the capital. Another suicide bomber tried to attack a U.S. convoy nearby but failed.

This is all going so well that we should try it in, say, Korea.

Ostrich Tactics

Downing Street Memo Mostly Ignored in U.S.
Wednesday, June 01, 2005
By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos

WASHINGTON — A British government memo that critics say proves the Bush administration manipulated evidence about weapons of mass destruction in order to carry out a plan to overthrow Saddam Hussein (search) has received little attention in the mainstream media, frustrating opponents of the Iraq war.

The "Downing Street Memo" — first published by The Sunday Times of London on May 1 — summarizes a high-level meeting between Prime Minister Tony Blair (search) and his senior national security team on July 23, 2002, months before the March 2003 coalition invasion of Iraq.

The memo suggests that British intelligence analysts were concerned that the Bush administration was marching to war on wobbly evidence that Saddam posed a serious threat to the world.

Click here to read the memo.

In the memo, written by top Blair aide Matthew Rycroft (search), Foreign Secretary Jack Straw indicated in the meeting that it "seemed clear" Bush had already decided to take military action.

"But the case was thin," reads the memo on Straw's impressions. "Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."

The memo also paraphrased former head of the British Secret Intelligence Services, Richard Dearlove, fresh from meetings in the United States. The memo said Dearlove believed "military action was now seen as inevitable."

"Bush wanted to remove Saddam Hussein, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD," the memo reads. "But the intelligence and the facts were being fixed around the policy," according to Dearlove's impressions.

"The NSC (National Security Council) had no patience with the U.N. route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."

The memo, which received sporadic reporting in major newspapers in the United States throughout May, has sparked an outcry from more than 88 Democratic members of Congress who have signed two letters to President Bush demanding a response.

Led by Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., the signatories are mostly representatives who opposed the war in Iraq and make up the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

Conyers says the mainstream media have ignored the story and let President Bush off the hook. He noted that liberal blogs and alternative media have been keeping the story alive. "But these voices are too few and too diffuse to overcome the blatant biases of our cable channels and the negligence and neglect of our major newspapers," Conyers said in a recent statement.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan has said there is "no need" to respond to the memos, the authenticity of which has not been denied.Click here to read the memo.

In the memo, written by top Blair aide Matthew Rycroft (search), Foreign Secretary Jack Straw indicated in the meeting that it "seemed clear" Bush had already decided to take military action.

"But the case was thin," reads the memo on Straw's impressions. "Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."

The memo also paraphrased former head of the British Secret Intelligence Services, Richard Dearlove, fresh from meetings in the United States. The memo said Dearlove believed "military action was now seen as inevitable."

"Bush wanted to remove Saddam Hussein, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD," the memo reads. "But the intelligence and the facts were being fixed around the policy," according to Dearlove's impressions.

"The NSC (National Security Council) had no patience with the U.N. route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."

The memo, which received sporadic reporting in major newspapers in the United States throughout May, has sparked an outcry from more than 88 Democratic members of Congress who have signed two letters to President Bush demanding a response.

Led by Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., the signatories are mostly representatives who opposed the war in Iraq and make up the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

Conyers says the mainstream media have ignored the story and let President Bush off the hook. He noted that liberal blogs and alternative media have been keeping the story alive. "But these voices are too few and too diffuse to overcome the blatant biases of our cable channels and the negligence and neglect of our major newspapers," Conyers said in a recent statement.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan has said there is "no need" to respond to the memos, the authenticity of which has not been denied.

Of course there is "no need." Until we demand it. Raw Story
reports, ""Unfortunately, the mainstream media in the United States was too busy with wall-to-wall coverage of a "runaway bride" to cover a bombshell report out of the British newspapers," Conyers writes. "The London Times reports that the British government and the United States government had secretly agreed to attack Iraq in 2002, before authorization was sought for such an attack in Congress, and had discussed creating pretextual justifications for doing so."

"The Times reports, based on a newly discovered document, that in 2002 British Prime Minister Tony Blair chaired a meeting in which he expressed his support for "regime change" through the use of force in Iraq and was warned by the nation's top lawyer that such an action would be illegal," he adds. "Blair also discussed the need for America to "create" conditions to justify the war."

How many more troops and Iraqis are we prepared to waste on this illegal war?

"The Night-School Students Are Saving the Country"

So said reporter and columnist Mary McGrory back in 1974.

She was speaking of judge John Sirica, and of House Judiciary Committee chairman Peter Rodino. But as Yoda would say, there is another.

Bob Woodward, in this morning's WaPo:

When I mentioned the graduate work to Felt, he perked up immediately, saying he had gone to night law school at GW in the 1930s before joining -- and this is the first time he mentioned it -- the FBI.

Mark Felt, for anyone who's been asleep all week, was "Deep Throat," Bob Woodward's secretive source during Watergate.

More night students were involved in saving us from Nixon than McGrory knew.

The News

Truth and Deceit

By BOB HERBERT
Published: June 2, 2005

Now, with George W. Bush in charge, the nation is mired in yet another tragic period marked by incompetence, duplicity, bad faith and outright lies coming once again from the very top of the government. Just last month we had the disclosure of a previously secret British government memorandum that offered further confirmation that the American public and the world were spoon-fed bogus information by the Bush administration in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq.

President Bush, as we know, wanted to remove Saddam Hussein through military action. With that in mind, the memo damningly explained, "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

That's the kind of deceit that was in play as American men and women were suiting up and marching off to combat at the president's command. Mr. Bush wanted war, and he got it. Many thousands have died as a result.

Even in Afghanistan, where the U.S. had legitimate reasons for going to war, the lies have been legion. Pat Tillman, for example, was a popular N.F.L. player who, in a burst of patriotism after Sept. 11, gave up a $3.6 million contract with the Arizona Cardinals to join the Army Rangers. He was sent first to Iraq, and then to Afghanistan, where he was shot to death by members of his own unit who mistook him for the enemy.

Instead of disclosing that Corporal Tillman had died tragically in a friendly fire incident, the Army spun a phony tale of heroism for his family and the nation. According to the Army, Corporal Tillman had been killed by enemy fire as he stormed a hill. Soldiers who knew the truth were ordered to keep quiet about the matter. Corporal Tillman's family was not told how he really died until after a nationally televised memorial service that recruiters viewed as a public relations bonanza.

Mary Tillman, Corporal Tillman's mother, told The Washington Post:

"The military let him down. The administration let him down. It was a sign of disrespect. The fact that he was the ultimate team player and he watched his own men kill him is absolutely heartbreaking and tragic. The fact that they lied about it afterward is disgusting."

At a press conference on Tuesday, President Bush, speaking about detainees who had complained of being abused, said they were "people that had been trained in some instances to disassemble - that means not tell the truth." Mr. Bush meant, of course, to say dissemble, which really means to deliberately mislead or conceal. Nevertheless, he knew what he was talking about. The president may have stumbled over the pronunciation, but he's proved time and again that he's a skillful practitioner of the art.

The lessons of Watergate and Vietnam are that the checks and balances embedded in the national government by the founding fathers (and which the Bush administration is trying mightily to destroy) are absolutely crucial if American-style democracy is to survive, and that a truly free and unfettered press (which the Bush administration is trying mightily to intimidate) is as important now as it's ever been.

There you have it in a nutshell. Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon, drunk with power and insufficiently restrained, took the nation on hair-raising journeys that were as unnecessary as they were destructive. Now, in the first years of the 21st century, George W. Bush is doing the same.

Congress and an aggressive press ultimately played crucial roles in bringing the truth about Vietnam and Watergate to light.

A similar challenge exists today. We'll see how it plays out.

I have nothing more to say.

Yet Another Yak-fest

International Conference to Focus on Preventing Infectious Disease from Spreading Worldwide

Wed Jun 1, 3:00 PM ET

OAKBROOK TERRACE, Ill., June 1 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The fast spread of diseases such as Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and avian flu across borders and continents will be the focus of the international conference "Think Globally, Act Locally: An International Conference on Infections that Have No Boundaries," on Sept. 8 to Sept. 9 at Hotel Nikko, San Francisco, Calif.

For the first time, the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc. (APIC), Joint Commission Resources (JCR), and its international division, Joint Commission International (JCI), are joining forces to bring together leading infection control and public health professionals to examine the rapid spread of emerging and reemerging pathogens. Recent outbreaks of SARS and avian flu, along with the reemergence of other infectious diseases, demonstrate how easily even the most advanced health care systems can be crippled. Participants and faculty will engage in a consensus-building decision process to define the essential actions that must be taken globally, locally and organizationally to help prevent, identify, and control the spread of infectious disease. Experts will define innovative and common infection control solutions, such as early alert systems, proper use of antimicrobial agents, and hand washing that represent the best methods to control the spread of infections. Professionals from different treatment settings will learn how they can work together to protect health care workers, patients, and the public, while business executives will learn critical factors that can protect their employees working around the world.

"Preventing infections from spreading across the world is one of the most critical tasks we face in health care today. This conference is important in meeting that goal because it facilitates the interaction of experts from around the world to devise far-reaching, yet practical solutions," says Karen H. Timmons, chief executive officer, JCR.

What makes them think that we have until September?

There needs to be a whole lot less yak and a whole lot more planning. What can be done to ramp up vaccine production. Dr. Henry Niman has a few things to say about that. What are we doing for mitigation? How are we planning to put overflow critical cases into hotels and motels to quarantine them from the general population? Hmm? Are you seeing those answers anywhere? I'm not.

Degraded Force

June 1, 2005: Military Finds Itself in Twilight Zone
by Jim Lobe

Thirty years after its ignominious withdrawal from Vietnam, senior military officers find themselves at a kind of midpoint between their dreams of glory – achieved with stunning speed in their lightning-like, two-week dash to Baghdad in 2003 – and nagging nightmares of ultimate defeat, be it in the form of the war of attrition that kills 15 or 20 of their troops each week, or in the outbreak of a full-scale civil war in Iraq that would make their continued presence untenable.

The war of attrition is damaging enough, according to the latest polls which show a steady drop, since a brief resurgence four months ago in the wake of the Jan. 30 Iraq elections, in public approval both for the original decision to go to war and in President George W. Bush's handling of the war. The latter has now fallen to an all-time low of just 37 percent.

That was translated into a little-noticed vote on Capitol Hill last week that must have given the historically sensitive military officers an unhappy sense of déjà vu: With just a couple of hours' notice, supporters of a resolution that called for Bush to submit a plan as soon as practicable to withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq gathered 128 votes.

The resolution was voted down 300-128, as expected. But a solid majority of Democratic lawmakers and five Republicans, including one of the party's most highly respected foreign-affairs experts, Iowa Representative James Leach, showed unexpected support for what Bush administration stalwarts would call a "cut-and-run" strategy. Four months ago, a letter calling for such a plan gathered the support of only 24 Democrats.

Most senior officers recognize that Bush's adventure in Iraq has put the military in a precarious state. Not only have retired officers, such as the former commander of the U.S. Central Command, Maj. Gen. Anthony Zinni, been the most outspoken critics of the war, but even serving officers have voiced subtle and sometimes not-so-subtle warnings about both the prospects for success in Iraq and the implications of being tied down there indefinitely.

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, warned a year ago that "there is no way to militarily lose in Iraq" and coupled that assertion with the observation that there is also no way to win militarily in Iraq. That synopsis evoked painful memories from Vietnam veterans who note bitterly that the U.S. lost the war despite the fact that its troops never lost a single battle.

It was also Myers, long criticized by his colleagues for not standing up to Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld, who told Congress last month in a classified report leaked to media that the current concentration of U.S. troops and equipment in Iraq and Afghanistan limits the ability of his forces to deal with other conflicts speedily and effectively.

That also was the message a year ago from Gen. John Riggs, a highly decorated Vietnam veteran who was in charge of the Army's modernization program until he was forced to resign shortly after he voiced his concerns to the Baltimore Sun. His previous boss, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki, also was unceremoniously retired early after he warned Congress that several hundred thousand U.S. troops would be needed to occupy Iraq.

Both men clashed publicly with Rumsfeld's notions of military "transformation" in which the speed and lethality of the U.S. armed forces have been given a much higher priority than more mundane and labor-intensive matters like the skills and equipment needed to maintain law and order or fight insurgencies. The former may be good for conventional wars, but for unconventional conflicts, such as Vietnam 30 years ago or Iraq today, technology has its limits.

The fact that they were punished for their views has sent a strong message to the top brass who, like Myers and his successor-designate, Marine Gen. Peter Pace, have accordingly avoided challenging the civilian leadership on military questions, just as their predecessors did during the Vietnam years.

To the great frustration of the middle ranks, repeated assertions by Bush and Rumsfeld that the military leadership has told them they have enough troops in Iraq are probably true. "The military part of [the defense secretary's office] has been politicized," Gen. Jay Garner, the Pentagon's original choice to run Iraq, told the Sun. "If [officers] disagree, they are ostracized and their reputations are ruined."

Thus, a cowed and politicized military establishment, hailed as invincible just two years ago, marches steadily on a demoralizing but all-too-familiar path.

How is it that these guys are supposed to be the grown-ups? Bush and Rummy act like petulant children.

Make New Friends

Well, I got Susie all set up to live blog the Take Back America Conference from now through noon Friday. I'll be live blogging the judicial nominations panel tomorrow afternoon for Judging the Future and the Bloggerfire blogging discussion tomorrow night live for Bump. I met Duncan Black (Atrios) for the first time today. Very nice man, tanned and rested after his Spanish vacation. I'll be sitting next to Oliver Willis and Political Animal's Amy Sullivan in Bloggers Alley, on the concourse level of the Washington Hilton (two floors below the main lobby) so if you are going to be in the Dupont Circle area of DC tomorrow, come by and say hello.

Drink Your Juice!

Chemical in grapes inhibits flu virus

May 31, 2005 (CIDRAP News) – Resveratrol, a chemical found in grapes and other fruits, inhibits the reproduction of influenza viruses in cell culture and mice, according to a recent report in the Journal of Infectious Diseases.

Rather than directly attacking the flu virus itself, resveratrol seems to block host-cell functions that are essential for viral replication, says the report by Anna T. Palamara and colleagues at the University of Rome. They write that the substance holds promise as a possible weapon against flu.

Resveratrol is an antioxidant that is found in at least 72 plant species and is known to help protect the heart and nervous system and help prevent cancer, says the report. The researchers did a series of experiments in which they exposed cells to a flu virus and added resveratrol an hour later. They also exposed groups of mice to the virus and treated them with resveratrol or a placebo.

In an initial cell-culture experiment, treatment with resveratrol at 20 mcg/ml reduced flu virus replication 90%, and treatment with 40 mcg/ml blocked replication completely. However, because the higher concentration damaged the cells, the lower concentration was used in further tests.

The researchers also tested the effects of starting resveratrol treatment at different intervals after infecting cells with the virus. Treatment was most effective—reducing viral growth 87.5%—when treatment began 3 hours after virus exposure. Effects were lower but still significant when treatment began 6 hours after infection, and treatment had no significant benefit if delayed until 9 hours after infection.

Given these and other findings, the researchers concluded that resveratrol interferes with the manufacture of proteins made late in the viral replication process, such as hemagglutinin, and limits the transport of viral ribonucleoproteins from the cell nucleus to the cytoplasm. The authors also determined that the molecular mechanism for resveratrol's effects has to do with the inhibition of protein kinase C activity and its dependent pathways.

Perhaps my wine therapy program has made me flu-proof. I think I'll add morning concord grape therapy to the program, however.

Hubris, Meet Nemesis

Christine Todd Whitman writes a letter to the editor of the WashPo:

It's risky to predict what current events will become historical turning points, but I'm willing to take a chance on this one. Years from now, students and analysts of American political life will point to May 23, 2005, as the day "radical moderates" took a stand and began to recapture the sensible center of U.S. politics. The 14 Republican and Democratic senators who came together to avert the detonation of the "nuclear option" over judicial nominations are owed a much greater debt of gratitude than many people yet realize.

By uniting in defense of America's historical commitment to consensus on issues of great national importance, they proved that moderates possess political muscle and are not afraid to use it judiciously and effectively. As a result, President Bush's judicial nominees will get the up-or-down votes they deserve, and the Senate can turn its focus from procedural matters back to the important challenges facing our country.

Predictably, those whom I call "social fundamentalists" -- the vocal minority who would purge from the Republican Party those who don't meet their narrow ideological litmus tests on a handful of social issues -- have gone to Defcon 2, just short of a nuclear launch, in their reactions.
....
History one day will reflect that the high-water mark of the "social conservative" movement in this country came two months ago with the Terri Schiavo case, when a vocal and organized minority persuaded Congress to intervene. Most Americans did not support that intrusion. History also will record that the tide began to turn just eight weeks later, as radical moderates flexed their political muscles to return the sensible center in American politics to its rightful place.

CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN

Oldwick, N.J.

I dunno about that. History may well record that the Schiavo case was the moment when over-reach began to blow up the hard right. Time will tell.l

Waiting for a Genie

We're All Living on Borrowed Time
By William G. Gale and Peter R. Orszag, William G. Gale and Peter R. Orszag are senior fellows at the Brookings Institution.

A family that saved nothing, borrowed a lot and lived well beyond its means just as it was nearing retirement would raise obvious red flags. The problems are no different — only bigger — at the national level. Low saving reduces our future national income. Borrowing from abroad is a deceptive palliative. Because our foreign creditors have to be paid back, foreign borrowing mortgages whatever future income the country generates.

The Bush administration and its apologists have responded to this situation with a mixture of denial and obfuscation. First, we are told that the current account deficit is a good thing because it indicates that the U.S. is a good place to invest. This would ring true if historically high borrowing from abroad were matched by historically high domestic investment, but it is not. Rather, we are investing about the same as in the past but borrowing a lot more.

Second, we are told that the official data are inaccurate and the country is really saving a lot, as evidenced, for instance, by the boom in housing prices. There are clearly shortcomings in how saving is measured, but even so, accurate measures of saving would show the U.S. saving very little. For instance, the boom in housing prices does not represent an increase in national resources. Existing homeowners are better off, but anyone who wants to buy a home is worse off. There is no net gain in saving.

Lastly, we are reminded that we had a fiscal problem in the 1980s and 1990s — big tax cuts, rising defense spending, deficits as far as the eye could see — and it went away, so what is the big deal now?

The big deal is that we are even less equipped to deal with the deficit problems now than we were in the Reagan era. Nor did the problems just disappear on their own. They were resolved through difficult political choices and some good luck.

As I am reminded everytime I look at my checkbook, luck is not a plan. But, then, planning is not a big part of the Bush agenda. They are here to plunder.

Who Pays?

I don't know why I even bother doing this to myself, but I watched the Bush Rose Garden presser yesterday. The temptation was to take the transcript and just pick it apart on a false statement by false statement basis. I decided I had better things to do with my time (take a hot bath, read a book, go for a walk, take a nap) but there was one remark so egregious that it had to be challenged.

Bush said he's "pleased with the progress" in Iraq, including the installation of a democratic government; expressed confidence in the ability of the Iraqis to develop their own security; and said the insurgents were being driven to greater violence by the prospect of seeing democracy take root.

How many lives is he willing to spend in the rooting process?

U.S. Toll in May Highest Since January
From Reuters

WASHINGTON — The monthly death toll for American troops in Iraq rose in May to the highest level since January, and the U.S. military said Tuesday that insurgents had doubled their number of daily attacks since April.

At least 77 U.S. troops were killed in May, the military said. That is the highest monthly toll since 107 American troops were killed in January.

It was the second straight monthly increase. In March, 36 U.S. troops died, one of the lowest monthly tolls of the war.

Lt. Col. Steve Boylan, a U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad, said insurgents were staging about 70 attacks a day nationwide.

"There was a period of time right after the [Jan. 30] election until the beginning of April or middle of April that we actually saw them dip into the low 30s," he said of the daily attacks.

The latest Pentagon figures list 1,658 U.S. military deaths since the war began in March 2003, with 12,630 more wounded in combat.

Insurgents have aggressively targeted Iraqi security forces and civilians as well. Boylan said more than 600 Iraqis had been killed or wounded in May.

My, this is all going so well.

Learning

via Juan Cole:

Blast aimed at NATO wounds 7 Afghans in Kabul
30. May 2005, 15:27

By Sayed Salahuddin

KABUL (Reuters) - A roadside bomb exploded in Kabul Monday, wounding seven Afghans, but leaving a vehicle carrying soldiers belonging to the NATO-led peacekeeping force that was the target unscathed, police and officials said.

A day earlier, six civilians were killed and six wounded when their minibus hit a land mine in the remote western province of Nimroz, which borders Iran and Pakistan.

The bomb in the capital exploded after the NATO vehicle passed on the main road leading to the eastern outskirts of the city, district police chief Mohammad Kabar told Reuters.

Five people traveling in the taxi behind the NATO vehicle and two pedestrians were wounded, he said.

Kabar said the device was attached to a parked bicycle and appeared to have been detonated by remote control.

Up to nine Afghan insurgents killed in clashes-US
31 May 2005 12:11:43 GMT
Source: Reuters
(Recasts with U.S. military statement, changes dateline)

KABUL, May 31 (Reuters) - Insurgents launched three nearly simultaneous attacks on U.S. and Afghan government positions and up to nine attackers were killed, the U.S. military said on Tuesday.

Rebels firing automatic rifles and rocket-propelled grenades attacked three adjacent positions in Paktika province, along the border with Pakistan, on Monday, the U.S. military said in a statement.

The attacks were the latest in a series of bloody guerrilla raids in Afghanistan that have dashed international community hopes the Taliban insurgency might be petering out.

At least 27 dead in Afghanistan mosque suicide blast - UPDATE 2
06.01.2005, 03:42 AM

(Adds witness quotes, details)

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan (AFX) - A suicide bomber blew himself up inside a mosque in Kandahar in southern Afghanistan today, killing at least 27 people including the police chief of the capital Kabul, witnesses and officials said.

The blast occurred as prayers were offered for an Islamic cleric who was shot dead by suspected Taliban militants at the weekend, they said.

An Agence France-Presse correspondent at the scene said he saw 'at least 27 dead bodies' at the Maulvi Abdul Rab mosque in central Kandahar, a city known as the birthplace of the ousted Taliban regime.

'One man entered the mosque and blew himself up. The explosion killed more than 20 people and lot of people are injured. General Akram, police chief in Kabul, was also killed,' the correspondent said.

'There were some 50 to 60 people inside the mosque when the explosion occurred. This was a very big explosion and there is blood everywhere in the mosque and outside it,' he said.

'Human limbs are scattered all over the mosque compound.'

Looks like the "Afghan insurgents" have been watching television. Imagine that.